DA Wargear "Power Field Generator" & Imperial Bastion

[Squirrelloid]

I disagree that a stat of - is a stat of 0.  '-' means 'not applicable', and is not a number (NAN).

 

NAN =/= 0.  Ever.  0 is a number.

[DarkGuard]

From now on, any post after this one will address the question of whether the PFG works in a Bastion etc. I'm sure the OP isn't worried about a massive RAW response into what makes a model a model, but a quick answer to his question. If it's already been answered well, then no more need to post here.

 

If you guys want to debate what makes a model a model, then please start a new thread on it which invites discussion and debate.

[Gentlemanloser]

How can we do that if you're leading the discussion DG? Honest quesiton, not trying to snipe you.

Does the PFG work on a Bastion?

That depends. Is it a counts-as vehicle? Is it just terrain? As it has no HP can it have a Save? It can be damaged though. What effect does the PFG have when embarked? Does it work as if the Bastion is a Vehicle? Is there a differenece if the PFG unit is embarked on the battlements?

We can't discuss this, if part of the meat and veg of the problem has been deemed off limits.

If this discussion is going to be limited, then I'm out. Let the OP dice off with his mates/LGS, or forge the narative. Whatever, good luck, have fun. And this seems to be the route the OR is taking recently.

How can we have a simple answer to this? I'll try to provide one.

No it doesn't.

Why? (lets not break the forum rules here by not supplying rules/evidence to back up our personal opinion) I can't supply that, as we're not allowed to discuss why. I don't think this is an issue that can be easily and simply put to bed. Sadly. And I don't see why we should be led, when so far this has been an adult discussion, without any immaturity.

I disagree that a stat of - is a stat of 0. '-' means 'not applicable', and is not a number (NAN).

BRB disagrees.

Some creatures have been given a 0 for certain characteristics,
which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field
(the same is also occasionally represented by a
'-').

Edit: As for the earlier Question about Vehicles and lacking I characteristics (assuming it's still ok to answers points raised earlier in this thread), the BRB tackles that;

vehicles have many different nrles and their own set of characteristics. Vehicle characteristics are described in the Vehicles section

Page 70 goes on to add;

Vehicles have characteristics that define how powerful they are
in a similar way to Infantry. However, their characteristics are
different.

And lists BS, AV, HP & Type.

Walkers are a special case and if we look on Page 84;

ADDITIONAI CHARACTERTSTICS
Unlike other vehicles, Walkers have a Weapon Skill,
Strength, Initiative and Attacks characteristic. Shown here is
an example:

If a Walker were to have a S of zero, it would be removed as a Casualty. Other types of Vehicles don't have these charcateristics.

Not even a - or 0 in them (which are mechanically the same).

They just don't have those stats.

[Squirrelloid]

Wait, they actually say "-" means "0"?  Ug.  I'm pretty sure whomever wrote the artillery profiles/rules did not intend - to mean 0, since all artillery are models with S -.   So assuming we're treating stats of '-' as not only 0, but reduced to 0, then all artillery, by RAW, insta-die at the start of the game.  yay.

 

The only reasonable solution to this is to conclude that '-' is not 0, but 'this attribute does not apply.  Models with an attribute of - automatically fail any test against the attribute as if it were 0'.  By making it not actually 0, we don't have models who don't have a strength score just dying on us. 

 

There's literally no reason to use '-' to mean '0' when you could just write 0, and as a notation it has a well-established meaning of 'this entry does not apply' outside of WH40k, which must be what most of the writers were assuming.

 

(BTW, the gun emplacement is an artillery piece model just like any other artillery model, and should be treated identically.  I suppose that belongs in the other thread).

[AyanamiKun]

@DarkGuard

THe discussion is very interesting to me :) I know how I will play the PFG in friendly games anyway (buildings get no invul from it, it does not project outside of the building when the bearer is embarked, etc.) but when investigating this I found all the issues discussed here and want to find a RAW solution :\

 

Btw, the model definition on pg. 3 in the rulebook discusses that each model has a unit type. Do buildings have a unit type? If not -> they are not models (?)

[Gentlemanloser]

Check the datasheets in the BRB (Can't access the BRB at work).

 

But if the have a 'unit' type, we're into more weirdness.  Like a Bastion in Area Terrain being able to go to ground...

 

I'm hedging my bets to say they have the type 'terrain' or 'building'.  Which isn't one of the 'unit' types given in that section of the rules (Infantry, bike, etc)

[AyanamiKun]

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:

 

 

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.

[Gentlemanloser]

Thanks!

 

Kinda sealed the deal there on whether a Gun Emplacement or Bastion is a 'unit'.

[DarkGuard]

All I'm saying is that for ease of reference to new comers who have a similar problem with defining what a unit is, putting a dedicated debate for what a unit is in its own thread would be better than in here. That way it can be searched for and better seen.

 

So basically what I'm saying is there's been many different arguments about what a unit is, and not all relate to the topic at hand. So long as they relate to the topic at hand debate them here. But some people appear to be debating for debates sake on this issue, which would therefore be better in a different thread. It's not a bad thing to debate about, but it would be get greater exposure in a different thread, which would also remove some of the more irrelevant parts from this thread allowing people searching for a simple answer to PFGs in Bastions find their answer a lot easier.

[HJL]

But the argument isnt about whether a bastion is a unit, its about whether its a model. Its clearly not a unit, or a normal unit. But i would argue that it is a model. Its a model of an Imperial Bastion.

[Gentlemanloser]

Page 3;

 

Forming A Unit
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'.

 

 

each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44

 

So for the Bastion to be a 'Model' (in 40k game terms), it must be a 'Unit', and have a 'Unit Type'.

 

Page 44 gives;

 

Infantry

Bikes & Jetbikes

Artillery

Jump Units

Jet Pack Units

Monstrous Creatures

Beasts

Cavalry

Flying Montrous Creatures

 

As all the Unit types.  It also mentions that Vechiles have thier own section.

 

It does not mention Terrain.

 

A quick look at any Codex will show examples of printed unit types, such as Grant Master Mordrak, Unit Type: Infantry (Character).

 

On the other hand, the datasheet for an Imperial Bastion in the BRB has no Unit Type, but instead has a Terrain Type.  Which is Terrain Type: Medium Building.

 

An Imperial Bastion is not a unit, therefore it is not a model.

 

It is Terrain.

 

Edit: As it is not a 'Model' (in game terms), it recdeives no save from a PFG.  Which offers a Save to all Friendly and Enemy 'Models' in range.  It is also neither Friendly, nor Enemy.  Which should be evident by either sides being able to occupy it.  At the same time.

[infornography]

I think what we have here is a genuine rules contradiction.  The rules for the bastion refer to it as a model whereas the rules in the rest of the BRB do not support it as a unit.

 

I am inclined to say it does not benefit from PFG, but I think there is a solid case to be made. 

[Gentlemanloser]

Info, that single line is GW messing up and using the word model to represent the physical bit of kit you're using for that specific piece of Terrain.

 

Where as 'Model' has a specific meaning in the 40k ruleset.

[infornography]

my point is that they obviously messed up somewhere, and that would be the most likely place, but it opens things up to a variety of interpretations.  This is one of the things that needs to be FAQed or errata-ed

[Grey Mage]

my point is that they obviously messed up somewhere, and that would be the most likely place, but it opens things up to a variety of interpretations.  This is one of the things that needs to be FAQed or errata-ed

I would agree with that, with the caveat that the default setting should be no to the save until such a time as we get a FAQ.

[Raeven]

I went back and looked.  I could find no support for the argument that Vehicles and Area terrain do not quality as models.  Pg. 3  "To reflect their differences, each model has it's own characteristics profile."  Vehicles and terrain has their own characteristics profiles.

 

So if everything is a model, then obviously some models are not affected by the rule on Pg 4.  Ergo, reduced becomes the most important word in the last sentence of that paragraph if you play strictly RAW.

 

You cannot be reduced to zero when you are already at zero.

[Gentlemanloser]

Raeven, I coved that in depth above;

 

Page 3;

 

Quote

Forming A Unit
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'.

 

 

Quote

>

each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 44

 

 

If you disagree, please explain what unit type an Imperial Bastion has.  And if it *is* a unit, I will go to ground with it, after I've placed it in Area Terrain.

[dswanick]

And I showed the fallacy of latching on to one definition of the words reduced, when in that same dictionary definition there are two other definitions which refute that contention and support variously the "written down as" and "equated to" arguments.

[Raeven]

 

Raeven, I coved that in depth above;

 

Page 3;

 

Quote

Forming A Unit

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

 

 

Quote

>

each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on p

age 44

 

If you disagree, please explain what unit type an Imperial Bastion has.  And if it *is* a unit, I will go to ground with it, after I've placed it in Area Terrain.

Bastions are Buildings, a subset of battlefield terrain.  It's still a model.  They have specific rules that prevent them from going to ground.   Pg. 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 the other side can go inside."

 

Vehicles have no rules giving them permission to Go to Ground.  Only models that are units may Go To Ground.  Only units can declare they are going to ground. Pg 18, last sentence of the first paragraph. 

 

 

Gun Emplacements are battlefield terrain.  Still a model.  Battlefield terrain typically cannot be targeted or attacked because there are no rules permitting such.  Gun Emplacements are the exception to that, having a special rule allowing them to be shot or assaulted.  pg. 105

[Raeven]

And I showed the fallacy of latching on to one definition of the words reduced, when in that same dictionary definition there are two other definitions which refute that contention and support variously the "written down as" and "equated to" arguments.

 

 

Either way, you have to agree that you either follow RAW or RAI.  If you restrict yourself to RAW, you can interpret the RAW to mean that unless the STR, T or W stat can be reduced TO zero, the rule has no bearing.  You cannot reduce anything below zero, and you cannot reduce zero.  If you can't agree, then that one rule will eliminate half the models you can play with, making your game quite unenjoyable. 

[dswanick]

Gun Emplacements are battlefield terrain.  Still a model.  Battlefield terrain typically cannot be targeted or attacked because there are no rules permitting such.  Gun Emplacements are the exception to that, having a special rule allowing them to be shot or assaulted.  pg. 105

But Gun Emplacements don't have specific rules eliminmating their ability to Move (as Buidlings do), so can Move - if its a Model/Unit.

Gun Emplacements don't have specific rules eliminating their ability to Go To Ground (as Buildings do through inheritance from the Vehicle Rules - if it's a Model/Unit.

Gun Emplacements and Buildings don't have specific rules eliminating their ability to Deny the Witch, but the FAQ clarifies that GW doesn't believe that they can. The only way this FAQ makes sense is if GW doesn't think that a Piece of Terrain is a Model as defined by the BRB on pgs.2-3.

 

 

 

And I showed the fallacy of latching on to one definition of the words reduced, when in that same dictionary definition there are two other definitions which refute that contention and support variously the "written down as" and "equated to" arguments.

 

 

Either way, you have to agree that you either follow RAW or RAI.  If you restrict yourself to RAW, you can interpret the RAW to mean that unless the STR, T or W stat can be reduced TO zero, the rule has no bearing.  You cannot reduce anything below zero, and you cannot reduce zero.  If you can't agree, then that one rule will eliminate half the models you can play with, making your game quite unenjoyable.

 

 

Actually, it will eliminate exactly zero models from my lists - as I don't use Artillery units in my army. I will still enjoy the game perfectly well without them.

However, I don't have to follow strictly RAW or RAI. I can (an do) play with a group of guys who apply Common Sense to GWs rules. We realize that the strict RAW interpretation of Artillery S- is silly, and leads to a result that runs counter to the spirit of the game. However, we also realize that treating Gun Emplacements as "Models" leads to some equally silly results and play it as a piece of Terrain with some added capabilites, without trying to game the rules into something that runs counter to the spirit of the game.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

Bastions are Buildings, a subset of battlefield terrain.  It's still a model.  They have specific rules that prevent them from going to ground.   Pg. 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 the other side can go inside."

 

Vehicles have no rules giving them permission to Go to Ground.  Only models that are units may Go To Ground.  Only units can declare they are going to ground. Pg 18, last sentence of the first paragraph.

 

"Only models that are units may Go To Ground."

 

Are you saying that Vehicles aren't models that are units?

 

 

Gun Emplacements are battlefield terrain.  Still a model.  Battlefield terrain typically cannot be targeted or attacked because there are no rules permitting such.  Gun Emplacements are the exception to that, having a special rule allowing them to be shot or assaulted.  pg. 105

 

How can it still be a model, when you're ignoring the given rules for what a model is.  Namely a unit, with a unit type.

[Raeven]

I think you are assigning too much meaning to the word model.  A model is exactly that.  Something that represents something else, different in scale/or design.  As you see through the book, everything that has a plastic kit is referred to as a model somewhere.  Even Bastions.  So calling something a model has absolutely zero bearing on the rules that regulate that pieces actions and abilities.

 

There are only three types of units in the game.  Models that are Units (listed on page 44), models that are vehicles, and models that are Characters. 

 

 

Dswanick

 

Gun Emplacements are Terrain (Battlefield debris).  Unless you want to argue that all terrain pieces get a movement, or can go to ground, the rules for terrain covers all the gotcha's you are trying to throw in to support the argument that it isn't a model.  It's not a unit.  No argument.  It is a terrain piece with characteristics. 

 

 

But Gun Emplacements don't have specific rules eliminmating their ability to Move (as Buidlings do), so can Move - if its a Model/Unit.
Gun Emplacements don't have specific rules eliminating their ability to Go To Ground (as Buildings do through inheritance from the Vehicle Rules - if it's a Model/Unit.
Gun Emplacements and Buildings don't have specific rules eliminating their ability to Deny the Witch, but the FAQ clarifies that GW doesn't believe that they can. The only way this FAQ makes sense is if GW doesn't think that a Piece of Terrain is a Model as defined by the BRB on pgs.2-3.

I covered the first two.  As to the last, only Unit's get a Deny the Witch roll.    Units are Infantry, bikes/Jetbikes, Artillery, Jump, Jet Pack, Monstrous Creatures, Beasts, Cavalry, FMC, *Characters, and *Vehicles.

 

*Characters and Vehicles have enough special rules to warrant their own section of rules, but they are still a type of unit.   Top section, Pg 44. 

 

Terrain is separate from Units and has it's own special sets of rules.  Some they share with vehicles, like Buildings.  Otherwise, they do not qualify as Units and are not subject to the rules of such. 

 

 

So, like you said, if I am going to apply RAW to everything, I have to be very selective in my reading the RAW.  Otherwise, Vehicles and anything else with no strength gets removed from the board because they are all models!  Thus the Reduced to 0 must have meaning to me, because I don't put special meaning into the word model referring only to unit types in the game.

[Gentlemanloser]

I think you are assigning too much meaning to the word model.  A model is exactly that.

 

We have to be careful with that.

 

Just look at;

 

 

If a model is in cover behind a ridgeline or hill crest, it has a 4+ covef save.

 

So we can start handing out Cover saves to Gun Emplacements (who can still go to ground behind thier own Aegis line...), Craters, Bastions, etc.

 

 

Models within the hyperslime's boundary have the Feel No Pain special rule -

 

And now our Gun Emplacement has FNP...  And our Bastion too.

 

 

If a unit is at least partially in a brainleaf frond forest at the

start of its Shooting phase, it must take a Leadership

test on 3D5 (even if locked in combat). If the test is failed,

one randomly determined model in the unit inflicts D6

automatic hits on his unit as he is taken over by ^brainleaf

and lashes out.

 

Bastion inflicting hits on itself...

 

 

Units other than vehicles in the path of a Ramming Tank are tank shocked as norrnal,

 

Tank shock that hill...  It's a model.  And all models are units.

 

That's just a quick list of how the game breaks down, for the lulz.  Here's the big one;

 

 

Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase.

 

I'll move that Bastion please. 

 

 

There are only three types of units in the game.  Models that are Units

(listed on page 44), models that are vehicles, and models that

are Characters.

 

What type is a Gun Empalcement?  Not a vehicle, wrong stats.  Not a Character.

 

If you want it to be a unit...  Well.  There's a lot more rules for units than there are models. ;)

[dswanick]

@Raevan - you seem to be under the mistaken notion that I support the idea that pieces of Terrain should be considered Models under the rules found on pgs.2-3. If that is the case, you are mistaken.

The OP is trying to forward the notion that a Bastion (a piece of Terrain) receives an Invulnerable Save from an embarked model with a Power Field Generator based on the Bastion being identified as a "model" in the statement "Fire Points: as per model". I am showing all of the fallacies inherent in that line of reasoning, which is the same line of reasoning being forwarded in the Jaws & Aegis Defense Line debate.