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.

hi guys

i need help with this question

how can we deploy the aegis

because i have some friends of mine that deploy like this



and say that vehicules beind it claim a cover of 3+ if they are hiden 25%

others say that you cannot deploy like that do to the Faq 1.4

that says -

Q: Can you deploy the Aegis Defence Line sections in two or more
groups of two or more sections apiece (this way, they will still be in
base contact with at least one other section)? (p114)
A: No – the Aegis defence line sections must be deployed
in an unbroken chain, though they can be connected endto-
end such as in the example shown on page 114.

so some say i need to deploy it like this



now im truly lost

can someone help me and explain with is correct to deploy? the first or the second

many thanks in advance

This seems pretty straight forward. The faq says you CAN connect it end to end, but you don't HAVE to. As long as each piece is connected to another unbroken I think you are fine. What you have pictured is perfectly legal.

look at the picture on 114 and it shows an end to end line.

hellboytuga wrote:
and say that vehicules beind it claim a cover of 3+ if they are hiden 25%

if the vehicle is obscured 25% it does receive the aegis's 4+ cover save.

And yes, vehicles can claim a cover save behind the Aegis. Provided they are 25% obscured. But its only a 4+ cover save. You need to be blocked by a Bastion or FoR to get a 3+ cover.

I seriously don't know why the ADL causes such confusion. Its very clearly laid out in the book how cover saves are claimed and what cover save the ADL provides.

Looks like a guard player, if he has camo netting it would stack to a 3+

except if you look at the picture again its grey knights! Coteaz in the middle and strike squad on the left, those are henchmen chimeras and greyknights do not have access to camouflage nets

Where can the gun be placed? Also touching the Aegis in an unbroken chain?

 Goat wrote:
Where can the gun be placed? Also touching the Aegis in an unbroken chain?

Given that the gun is not an ADL section it is not required from a technical perspective to be touching the ADL. You are not told how to deploy the gun other than the general Fortification rules.

So I would say you can place it wherever you want, doesn't have to be near the ADL at all if you don't want it to be. But a better course of action is to have it within a reasonable distance of the line.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Goat wrote:
Where can the gun be placed? Also touching the Aegis in an unbroken chain?

Given that the gun is not an ADL section it is not required from a technical perspective to be touching the ADL. You are not told how to deploy the gun other than the general Fortification rules.

So I would say you can place it wherever you want, doesn't have to be near the ADL at all if you don't want it to be. But a better course of action is to have it within a reasonable distance of the line.

It is an option to the ADL, Just like the sponson weapons on a predator are an option.

If you want to place the ADL wherever you want then I will place my sponson options for my Predator wherever I want. But that way lies madness.

an option should be attached to the thing it was bought for.

Except the sponsons are model options, and are required to go with the model. An ADL is not a model, nor is the gun a model. Its terrain.

hellboytuga wrote:

others say that you cannot deploy like that do to the Faq 1.4

What the FAQ is saying is that you can't split the ADL up into different locations. All of the wall sections you are using must be in one chain. That chain can be a line or a loop, up to you.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except the sponsons are model options, and are required to go with the model.

Citation needed.

Where does it say this, I can not find it.

If its not on the model you don't have the upgrade. WYSIWYG.


Also, permissive rule set. As a fortification I am allowed to put the quad-gun anywhere on my table half. The ADL itself(the actual wall sections) have been clarified to have to be in BtB with at least one other wall section in an unbroken chain. The Quad-gun has no such restriction.

Sponsons are not given permission to be anywhere. they simply represent an upgrade for the vehicle. Thus by inference they have to be on the vehicle(note you can put them wherever you want on the vehicle, barring MFA rules)

I would allow you to put your sponsons anywhere you wanted.
Of course I would then ask how you intend to shoot them since they are not an emplaced gun/gun emplacement (so a troop can't walk up to them and fire them) nor attached to a vehicle.

dkellyj wrote:
I would allow you to put your sponsons anywhere you wanted.
Of course I would then ask how you intend to shoot them since they are not an emplaced gun/gun emplacement (so a troop can't walk up to them and fire them) nor attached to a vehicle.

It is a weapon that was bought as an option for the predator, once you nominate the predator to make a shooting attack, the lascannons can shoot as well, as the lascannons were an option for the predator.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If its not on the model you don't have the upgrade. WYSIWYG.

Citation needed. I can not find the WYSIWYG rule in the book.

Also, permissive rule set. As a fortification I am allowed to put the quad-gun anywhere on my table half.

The quad gun is the same fortification as the ADL.

The ADL itself(the actual wall sections) have been clarified to have to be in BtB with at least one other wall section in an unbroken chain. The Quad-gun has no such restriction.

The quad gun is as much a part of the ADL as Sponsons on a predator are a part of that predator, or a meltagun is a part of the model it is an option for.

Sponsons are not given permission to be anywhere. they simply represent an upgrade for the vehicle.

The same applies for the ADL gun.

Thus by inference they have to be on the vehicle(note you can put them wherever you want on the vehicle, barring MFA rules)

The same inference applies to the ADL.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If its not on the model you don't have the upgrade. WYSIWYG.


Also, permissive rule set. As a fortification I am allowed to put the quad-gun anywhere on my table half. The ADL itself(the actual wall sections) have been clarified to have to be in BtB with at least one other wall section in an unbroken chain. The Quad-gun has no such restriction.

Sponsons are not given permission to be anywhere. they simply represent an upgrade for the vehicle. Thus by inference they have to be on the vehicle(note you can put them wherever you want on the vehicle, barring MFA rules)

Except that the Quad gun or Icarus Lascannon are emplaced weapons for a fortification as stated in the BRB. Emplaced's definition is as follows;

"To put into place or position"

It is purhcased as an option for the fortification and by definition must be placed with the fortification it is purchased for. If there was a Codex or BRB option to purchase a stand alone Quad gun for 50 pts or Icarus Lascannon for 35 pts then it would be placed as a single unit, i.e. anywhere you like. Since you can only get one with a fortification it must be placed with the fortification.

 Treavous wrote:
except if you look at the picture again its grey knights! Coteaz in the middle and strike squad on the left, those are henchmen chimeras and greyknights do not have access to camouflage nets

What is this, an old spice commercial?

The Quad gun can be put wherever you want. The option allows you to purchase a Quad Gun/Icarus Lascannon as a mounted turret, unlike other fortifications where it says the gun is mounted in a specific place. The Bastion says that its heavy bolters are on each facing wall, the FoA says that it's Icarus Lascannon is in a specific place and it's heavy bolters are attached to the barricade part. The Quad Gun just says it is a (term for a mounted gun that I can't remember right now.)

Waaaghpower wrote:
The Quad gun can be put wherever you want.

Citation needed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
The Quad gun can be put wherever you want.

Citation needed.

Did you not read the rest of my post? Where I explained the argument behind my statement? Adding only part of what someone said and then adding 'Citation Needed' is a little ridiculous. Context is important. Besides, one sshould not be required to cite every word they say in a paragraph. But here, lemme try posting sone things without context and adding 'Citation Needed.':
'
"Sponson Weapons on a predator are an option." - You. (Citation needed.)
"The Quad-gun is the same fortification as the Aegis Defense Line." - You. (Citation needed.)
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." - Newton. (Citation needed.)

My point being...
Adding 'Citation Needed' to any argument you disagree with is not a counterpoint. Respond with a logical, thought out opinion, a quote from the rulebook, sure. But at least have an opinion besides "You're wrong."

Using the pictures provided, I would say that the gun need not be in base contact. Here is why - gun emplacement its an upgrade, just like the comm relay. While the gun may or may not be in base contact with the defense line in the picture, the comm relay is definitely not attached to the bastion.

The Bastion rules (like the Skyshield) are known to be missing bits.

The picture of the ADL appears to show it in contact with the wall behind. Remember that the base of the gun has a panel at the back which sticks out further.

There is no rule stating that the upgrade to the ADL can be placed anywhere you like. To the contrary, the main rulebook FAQ describes it as being "attached" to the ADL.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The Bastion rules (like the Skyshield) are known to be missing bits.

The picture of the ADL appears to show it in contact with the wall behind. Remember that the base of the gun has a panel at the back which sticks out further.

There is no rule stating that the upgrade to the ADL can be placed anywhere you like. To the contrary, the main rulebook FAQ describes it as being "attached" to the ADL.

All of the Fortification rules are missing "bits" including the ADL. I've seen arguments (including using the picture and lines) that "prove" that the gun both is and is not touching the ADL, which is why I do not use that picture in my argument.

As I said, my argument hinges on the picture of the Bastion, where the Comm Relay (which like the Gun Emplacement is an add-on) does not touch the Bastion. Also the picture on page 89 (which includes an ADL) also has a Gun Emplacement not in base contact (though that one is most likely not bought as a Fortification).

The rulebook Fortification rules are demonstrably incomplete. The standard best practice for an ambiguous situation is to play by the less powerful/more restrictive interpretation, to minimize the chance of claiming an undeserved advantage over an opponent. The main rulebook FAQ refers to the weapon emplacement for an Aegis as being "attached" to it. The large event FAQs (BAO, Adepticon) we're seeing so far making necessary clarifying rulings on the optional add-ons for Fortifications are going with the more restrictive must be in contact/must be on top of the Bastion rulings.

It's not 100% ironclad, but I think the trend and the best and most sportsmanlike way to play it is pretty darn clear.

 Mannahnin wrote:
To the contrary, the main rulebook FAQ describes it as being "attached" to the ADL.

And, as I've explained to you several times already, "attached" has two meanings: physically connected to, and organizationally related to. And the second, organizational, meaning is the more likely of the two in the context of the FAQ (since the gun's physical location has nothing to do with the question being asked, while the gun's organizational relationship to the defense line is a critical part of the question).

Please stop posting this bit about it being "attached" as if the word is an unambiguous reference to physical contact.

The standard best practice for an ambiguous situation is to play by the less powerful/more restrictive interpretation, to minimize the chance of claiming an undeserved advantage over an opponent.

And I disagree completely. The best practice for an ambiguous situation is to play by the most likely interpretation. I see no reason to impose additional limits on yourself just because there's a tiny chance that an "ambiguous" statement could be interpreted in a more restrictive way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Citation needed.

The rulebook tells you very clearly where fortifications can be placed: entirely in your half of the table, not within X" of another fortification. As long as your ADL configuration meets those two requirements (along with the unit-specific one that the wall sections must form a single unbroken chain) then it is a legal way of placing the fortification. YOU are the one who needs to provide an explicit rule that any other restrictions on where/how you can place the model exist.

Also, by your reasoning, I'm declaring that the ADL must be placed along the back edge of your deployment zone (so that nothing can be behind it), and the gun emplacement must be placed underneath a bucket (so it can never have LOS to anything). You're going to disagree with this rule, so I'll go ahead and say it now: CITATION NEEDED. Until you provide that citation I expect you to place your ADL along the back table edge.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Where does it say this, I can not find it.

In the instructions for assembling your tank model. The rules do not give you permission to modify the model, so you must obey the instruction that the upgrade guns be placed in the proper location.

No such instruction exists for placing the gun emplacement.

We've gone around on this before, Peregrine. You've explained your position to me, I've explained mine to you, and neither has convinced the other. I don't think you can legitimately apply the organizational sense of the word "attached" to a wall and a gun. It's not an adjutant being seconded to a general's staff. It's a gun and a wall.

Your position does not match the rulings major tournaments are making so far, nor to the rulings I'm seeing at events here in New England either.

 Mannahnin wrote:
We've gone around on this before, Peregrine. You've explained your position to me, I've explained mine to you, and neither has convinced the other. I don't think you can legitimately apply the organizational sense of the word "attached" to a wall and a gun. It's not an adjutant being seconded to a general's staff. It's a gun and a wall.

I don't think there's much chance of you accepting my argument. I just want you to stop posting your claim about "attached" like there's no controversy. Even if you conclude that the "physical contact" definition is the appropriate one the organizational definition still exists, and it's incredibly misleading to talk about the word as if it only has one legitimate definition.

And yes, you can apply it. As I said before:

The "physical contact" definition makes no sense in the context of the FAQ. Whether the gun is in direct contact with the wall or 1mm away from the wall has no impact on whether you can or can't shoot at it. This interpretation makes "attached" a redundant word in that question, just like describing what color the gun is painted.

The organizational definition makes complete sense in the context of the FAQ. Whether the gun is organizationally tied to the rest of the fortification could have an impact on whether you can or can't shoot at it. For example, you might ask if combining the gun organizationally with the wall applies the "can't shoot at this" status of the defense lines to the gun, or if having the gun be part of a fortification taken in your own army makes it count as a "friendly unit" and ban you from shooting at it. These are relevant questions that depend on the organizational relationship between the gun and the wall, and "attached" is the appropriate word to use when asking them.

So, even if you insist that the "physical contact" definition is the correct one, you can't deny that the organizational definition exists and could be legitimately applied to that FAQ.

Your position does not match the rulings major tournaments are making so far, nor to the rulings I'm seeing at events here in New England either.

So what? That just means that the major tournaments are wrong and/or ruling based on "how I think it should work" instead of "what the rules say". If the major tournaments want to change the rules so that it works in a more "fluffy" way and is less "exploitable" that's fine, but it doesn't change what the rules as published by GW say.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Goat wrote:
Where can the gun be placed? Also touching the Aegis in an unbroken chain?

Given that the gun is not an ADL section it is not required from a technical perspective to be touching the ADL. You are not told how to deploy the gun other than the general Fortification rules.

So I would say you can place it wherever you want, doesn't have to be near the ADL at all if you don't want it to be. But a better course of action is to have it within a reasonable distance of the line.

It's an option for the ADL, how can you not put it with the ADL? You can not buy just the gun, you buy the ADL, and if you want, you can buy either gun or the Vox (which when you put the stupid thing together, shows where the Vox unit should be connected on the wall)

 RicBlasko wrote:
It's an option for the ADL, how can you not put it with the ADL?

Because there's no rule that the pieces of a fortification have to be "with" each other. That's why the ADL requires an explicit unit-specific rule that the wall sections have to form a single unbroken chain, otherwise you could deploy them as individual pieces all over the table. Since the gun has no similar rule you can place it anywhere you like (subject to the normal rules for where a fortification can be placed).

Also, please define "with" in this context. Do you think that the gun emplacement must be in direct contact with the wall, or just "near" it? If you believe the latter, exactly what distance is considered "with" the wall, and where does the rulebook specify that distance?