DA Wargear "Power Field Generator" & Imperial Bastion

[Raeven]

@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.

 

Sorry, I thought we were still debating whether a model with no Str, T, or W value should be immediately removed from the game. 

 

As for this argument, I regret disagreeing again.  I haven't seen a strong argument against it not being a model.  In fact, I feel there is a stronger argument that Bastions are models.  Pg 2  "To reflect all their differences each model as it's own characteristics profile."

 

Most terrain does not have a characteristics profile.  They may confer rules and bonuses/penalties, but are not targetable in and of themselves.  Buildings and the Gun Emplacement do have characteristics.  Since they are also referred to as models in the book, it makes sense to treat them as models.  Even if it means they get a +4 invulnerable save from a piece of wargear that isn't exactly cheap.

 

 

Now, the wargear's range and the FAQ, in my opinion, would limit how it affects buildings.  Since each level of a building is only 3 inches, the PFG should only grant it's benefits to models on the same level as the carrier.  Building and ruin rules support that theory. 

 

How you deal with is when the wargear is at the base of the bastion or building  is not covered and is definitely a subject of debate.

[dswanick]

As for this argument, I regret disagreeing again.  I haven't seen a strong argument against it not being a model.  In fact, I feel there is a stronger argument that Bastions are models.  Pg 2  "To reflect all their differences each model as it's own characteristics profile."

 

Most terrain does not have a characteristics profile.  They may confer rules and bonuses/penalties, but are not targetable in and of themselves.  Buildings and the Gun Emplacement do have characteristics.  Since they are also referred to as models in the book, it makes sense to treat them as models.

And, I guess, that's where I disagree. If you treat Gun Emplacements and Buildings as "Models", then you are also accepting all of the following:

- Gun Emplacements moving 6" per turn, not being approachable except via a Charge, Going to Ground, having Feel no Pain, etc.

- Buidlings with It Will Not Die (via Endurance), etc.

- And units with no 'Unit Type:' due to the rule stating "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." (BRB, pg.3). So what's the 'Unit Type:' of a Gun Emplacement?

There are a great many rules which affect "Models", which no WH40K player I've ever encountered would argue should affect Pieces of Terrain. And yet, if you insist on declaring any Pieces of Terrain as Models that's exactly what you are proposing. That any rule which affects a "model" and is not specifically excluded by the rules for Gun Emplacements and Buildings, applies to Gun Emplacements and/or Buildings (and any future Terrain which is also given a Characteristic block, such as the Wall of Martyrs).