Is it possible for an opponent to use another opponent's quad gun from behind the ADL if there are no other models in base contact with it? I tried doing a search on here and could not pull up any results. Google was mildly helpful leaning toward being able to use it. Other than causing sore feelings, is there anything else that prevents this? Thanks for any guidance/input!

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:
Is it possible for an opponent to use another opponent's quad gun from behind the ADL if there are no other models in base contact with it? I tried doing a search on here and could not pull up any results. Google was mildly helpful leaning toward being able to use it. Other than causing sore feelings, is there anything else that prevents this? Thanks for any guidance/input!

Even if there is another model in BtB with it you both should be able to use it. In your respective shooting phases/shooting at reserves

Do it why not? if your opponent is a noob and leaves it for you then he deserves that.

As far as i know if you are btb with it and they are not then fire away.

Sadly quad kinda sucks :( if you stole the icarus lsc you can lay down some serious hurt.

Yeah the Quad kinda sucks buts it better then a bolter. give er the rules say you gotta be in BtB with it. so you shoot it during your turn they shoot it during their turn.
Sharing is caring

 cowpow16 wrote:
Do it why not? if your opponent is a noob and leaves it for you then he deserves that.

As far as i know if you are btb with it and they are not then fire away.

Sadly quad kinda sucks :( if you stole the icarus lsc you can lay down some serious hurt.

>Calls someone a noob
>Says the quad gun sucks

 Testify wrote:

 cowpow16 wrote:
Do it why not? if your opponent is a noob and leaves it for you then he deserves that.

As far as i know if you are btb with it and they are not then fire away.

Sadly quad kinda sucks :( if you stole the icarus lsc you can lay down some serious hurt.

>Calls someone a noob
>Says the quad gun sucks

Mainly the second one that bothers me though >.<

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:
Is it possible for an opponent to use another opponent's quad gun from behind the ADL if there are no other models in base contact with it? I tried doing a search on here and could not pull up any results. Google was mildly helpful leaning toward being able to use it. Other than causing sore feelings, is there anything else that prevents this? Thanks for any guidance/input!

Even if there is another model in BtB with it you both should be able to use it. In your respective shooting phases/shooting at reserves

This is true. Of course there are few disclaimers:

Model cannot use the quad-gun unless it is actually BTB with it, meaning if the quad gun is physically behind the ADL, opponent cannot just move model in base contact with the Defence Line section in front of the quad gun and then use the quad gun (barricade/wall/defence line special rules about base contact only apply for charge moves). Generally he needs to move over the defence line to get in base contact.

Other restricting issue is that the opponent must stay at least 1" away from your models, and vice versa, meaning that it is pretty easy to stop this from happening if you have the gun manned.

Remember also that it's a Heavy weapon, so if you move up into contact with it and fire that same turn, you'll be firing Snap Shots.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Remember also that it's a Heavy weapon, so if you move up into contact with it and fire that same turn, you'll be firing Snap Shots.

Unless the model that moved into contact with it has relentless.
Queue scout bikers.

-Matt

So I outflank my wolf priest with a GH squad that has an attached WG terminator and if I get the TDA model into b2b with the quad gun I can splatter some squad with the quad gun?
Good to hear.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
So I outflank my wolf priest with a GH squad that has an attached WG terminator and if I get the TDA model into b2b with the quad gun I can splatter some squad with the quad gun?
Good to hear.

yep and if they deep strike some models to move them off it you can shoot them as well (incept is lovely rule) ...

... Of course the question then is can the enemy shoot then quad gun that turn.

You also still have to keep 1" away from all enemy models, so you can keep your quadgun safe by packing a squad around it.

Thanks everyone! This came up in a game where I used some Ork storm boyz with Zagstruk to assault and suck a unit of necron immortals off of the quad gun and had battle wagons full of boyz that passed the difficult terrain test with enough inches to get over the line and move into base with the quad gun... With intent of shoosting me some doom scythes... Just trying to figure out if using it that way was legal/acceptable or a TFG move.

until someone drops a Barrage plate followed by Some Nators

I will say that if there was still a model in base contact, I would not have tried it... Whether it is fair or not, someone paid the points and if they are using/manning it then it is off limits in my mind... however, if it is not, I think it falls into the "battle field debris" area of the BRB and is open for anyone to use...

My major concern with this is that if an opponent is allowed to fire my gun emplacement then I should be able to fire at my own gun emplacement/assault it if I choose to do so. Allowing an opponent to fire the weapon and denying me the ability to destroy the weapon because it is 'friendly' means an opponent could overrun the emplacement and 'lol' as they had a firing platform that effectively could not be taken out.

Also, if it can be shot and assaulted then why would anyone argue that it is an enemy model? Seems like if it can be shot and assault like an enemy unit...it is an enemy unit...

I'd say that the emplacement is treated as a friendly model and as such cannot be manned by an opponent unless a specific power or something of that nature states otherwise.

 Jstncloud wrote:
My major concern with this is that if an opponent is allowed to fire my gun emplacement then I should be able to fire at my own gun emplacement/assault it if I choose to do so. Allowing an opponent to fire the weapon and denying me the ability to destroy the weapon because it is 'friendly' means an opponent could overrun the emplacement and 'lol' as they had a firing platform that effectively could not be taken out.

I'd say that the emplacement is treated as a friendly model and as such cannot be manned by an opponent unless a specific power or something of that nature states otherwise.

It's not a friendly model IIRC, and the rules allow you to assault/shoot at it if you wish.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:
My major concern with this is that if an opponent is allowed to fire my gun emplacement then I should be able to fire at my own gun emplacement/assault it if I choose to do so. Allowing an opponent to fire the weapon and denying me the ability to destroy the weapon because it is 'friendly' means an opponent could overrun the emplacement and 'lol' as they had a firing platform that effectively could not be taken out.

I'd say that the emplacement is treated as a friendly model and as such cannot be manned by an opponent unless a specific power or something of that nature states otherwise.

It's not a friendly model IIRC, and the rules allow you to assault/shoot at it if you wish.

I would like to see a FAQ for this, because if this is the case what is to stop me from just destroying my emplacement to get first blood? The rules for first blood just state the removal of a unit. (Page 122, The first unit of any kind.)

I realize that is a stretch, but if we are going to allow someone to fire emplacements that are not their own then why can we not skew the rules further to include first blood.

Also, any chance there is a page number that states it is not a friendly unit? If I recall there is no 'neutral' type of unit. You are allowed to fire and assault 'enemy' units, if I am allowed to assault or fire upon the emplacement then it must also be friendly and enemy in classification at the same time. If there is a page in the rule book I missed I'll gladly give it a look.

The opposing side gains a victory point for First Blood.
What is the opposing side to a neutral unit?

 Jstncloud wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:
My major concern with this is that if an opponent is allowed to fire my gun emplacement then I should be able to fire at my own gun emplacement/assault it if I choose to do so. Allowing an opponent to fire the weapon and denying me the ability to destroy the weapon because it is 'friendly' means an opponent could overrun the emplacement and 'lol' as they had a firing platform that effectively could not be taken out.

I'd say that the emplacement is treated as a friendly model and as such cannot be manned by an opponent unless a specific power or something of that nature states otherwise.

It's not a friendly model IIRC, and the rules allow you to assault/shoot at it if you wish.

I would like to see a FAQ for this, because if this is the case what is to stop me from just destroying my emplacement to get first blood? The rules for first blood just state the removal of a unit. (Page 122, The first unit of any kind.)

I realize that is a stretch, but if we are going to allow someone to fire emplacements that are not their own then why can we not skew the rules further to include first blood.

Also, any chance there is a page number that states it is not a friendly unit? If I recall there is no 'neutral' type of unit. You are allowed to fire and assault 'enemy' units, if I am allowed to assault or fire upon the emplacement then it must also be friendly and enemy in classification at the same time. If there is a page in the rule book I missed I'll gladly give it a look.

It's neutral no one gets first blood. However First blood is done with as a unit was destroyed

Check out pg 105 IIRC that gives you permission to shoot/assault it ( from memory)

Page 105, it's not a enemy unit, but you are given permission to assault/shoot if.

Of course the counter argument to this is that it is not a unit, it is terrain (specifically battlefield debris) and as such destroying it is the same as destroying terrain (when possible, see Apocalypse and Cities of Death I think).

Right; it's terrain, not a unit, so killing it doesn't earn First Blood or a VP in Purge the Alien. It's not friendly or enemy to anyone, and it's the specific rules for that type of terrain which grant the ability for anyone to shoot or assault it.

I assaulted a min grey hunter squad that was manning a quad gun with my dreadknight. Wiped them. Then consolidated onto the gun and was able to fire it at his allied stormtalon on interceptor when it came in from reserves. I only knocked off a HP, but it was still awesome!
I know, cool story, right? The moral of the story is that the judge in the tournament allowed this as he couldn't find anything to prevent me from doing it. Also, it was awesome. Did I mention that?

So is the consensus that as long as enemy models are not in base with the gun it is free game? I don't know how to set up a vote on a thread...


Edit-- Just figured it out...

With no reasonable poll reaponse available, it is entirely possible to steal a quad-gun. If it is unmanned, it is up for grabs.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
With no reasonable poll reaponse available, it is entirely possible to steal a quad-gun. If it is unmanned, it is up for grabs.

It is my first poll... I tried to represent different views... Is there another response option that needs added? Thanks!

I would just like to point out that, at least in the United States, stealing is illegal. If you are going to steal our opponents Quad-gun, shame on you.

In all seriousness though the only restrictions is that you must remain >1" away from enemy models. If you are still able to get in base contact, there is nothing denying you to fire the Quad Gun.

Happyjew wrote:
I would just like to point out that, at least in the United States, stealing is illegal. If you are going to steal our opponents Quad-gun, shame on you.

In all seriousness though the only restrictions is that you must remain >1" away from enemy models. If you are still able to get in base contact, there is nothing denying you to fire the Quad Gun.

I gotcha Yes, only on the tabletop can you "steal" your opponent's quad gun. You should in no way actually take unlawful physical possesion of your opponent's quad gun...

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
With no reasonable poll reaponse available, it is entirely possible to steal a quad-gun. If it is unmanned, it is up for grabs.

It is my first poll... I tried to represent different views... Is there another response option that needs added? Thanks!

Here is how your poll should have gone:

Is it possible to steal an opponent's quad gun?

Yes
No
not sure.

Simple.

Raw both sides can shoot the gun every turb. Rai it should be unmanned in order to jack it. Needs faq. Play raw until further notice

Or neither side can fire while its contested.

I voted "both sides can use", but obviously only if enemy is over 1" away while you do it.

What stops you from using it even if an enemy is within 1" of thequad gun. I haven't seen a rule in the BRB or FAQ that mentions contesting gun enplacements of prohibits a model from firing if they are within 1"?

You can't end your movement within 1" of an enemy model. So if your opponent places his models right it'd be impossible for you to get b2b with the gun.

The answer is NO. You can not "steal" your opponents guns. Here are my reasons. all of which are on page 96 of the BRB.
1. If your opponent purchases a model as part of his/her army then it becomes an "enemy model" and should be treated as such.
2. The emplaced weapon rules on page 96 of the BRB have quite clear rules on how to fire them.
3. To say a ADL and its weapon are terrain and "neutral" isnt true if purchased as part of an army. a neutral ADL would follow the rules for dilipated terrain.

 Prophet40k wrote:
The answer is NO. You can not "steal" your opponents guns. Here are my reasons. all of which are on page 96 of the BRB.
1. If your opponent purchases a model as part of his/her army then it becomes an "enemy model" and should be treated as such.
2. The emplaced weapon rules on page 96 of the BRB have quite clear rules on how to fire them.
3. To say a ADL and its weapon are terrain and "neutral" isnt true if purchased as part of an army. a neutral ADL would follow the rules for dilipated terrain.

So you are saying that if I murder all the units you place in your adl with an assault squad, that assault squad doesn't gain the same benefit when it comes to cover saves as the units that previously occupied it?

the rules for taking cover saves have nothing to do with where the cover saves come from so long as they make the requirements to recieve them. Doesnt matter if the model is blocked by my ADL.. your ADL or a dilipated ADL the cover saves would be the same.

Firing an Enemys gun emplacement are diffrent though as the rules for enemy models and how to treat them however are very clear.

 Prophet40k wrote:
The answer is NO. You can not "steal" your opponents guns. Here are my reasons. all of which are on page 96 of the BRB.
1. If your opponent purchases a model as part of his/her army then it becomes an "enemy model" and should be treated as such.
2. The emplaced weapon rules on page 96 of the BRB have quite clear rules on how to fire them.
3. To say a ADL and its weapon are terrain and "neutral" isnt true if purchased as part of an army. a neutral ADL would follow the rules for dilipated terrain.

The quad gun is not an emplaced weapon. None of the rules on page 96 apply.

Gun emplacement != Emplaced weapon

They can be confusing, however

ok. silly argument, but I see they are have diffrent difinitions pg96 and 105 respectfully.

But show me where it says that it isnt an enemy model. otherwise it would still follow the rules for a dilapadated emplacement no?

Do you mean gun emplacement is not equal to an emplaced weapon?

 wyomingfox wrote:
Do you mean gun emplacement is not equal to an emplaced weapon?

Yes they are two different things, each with is own rules.

 Prophet40k wrote:
ok. silly argument, but I see they are have diffrent difinitions pg96 and 105 respectfully.

It's a silly argument that different things are defined differently?

But show me where it says that it isnt an enemy model. otherwise it would still follow the rules for a dilapadated emplacement no?

BRB page 96 wrote:In this case, simply treat all fortifications not bought for either you or your opponent's army as being dilapidated.

So we know it's not dilapidated as it was bought for an army.

Gun Emplacement wrote:One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon, following the normal rules for shooting.

So we know that it can be fired by any model.

Nope, not seeing that it's "owned" by anyone regardless of the fact that it was bought for one army.

MePeople wrote:
Yeah the Quad kinda sucks buts it better then a bolter. give er the rules say you gotta be in BtB with it. so you shoot it during your turn they shoot it during their turn.
Sharing is caring

LOL how can you think it sucks? Its 2 twin linked auto cannons... with skyfire. Its actually insane. Especially compared to a bolter...

How is it not "owned" by anyone? One player pays for it.

The fact that it may be un-attended does not change the fact that it is owned.

I look the part of the brb which tells me how to make my army (begining on pg 108) to support the fact that it is owned.

I fielded it as part of my army, therefore I believe that my opponent should treat it as an enemy model.

Except the rules do not support that view.

 Prophet40k wrote:
How is it not "owned" by anyone? One player pays for it.

Yes, but that doesn't stop the enemy from using it. No more than you paying for your ADL stops your opponent from getting cover save from being behind it or paying for your Bastion stops your enemy from embarking to it if you left it empty.

 Prophet40k wrote:
I fielded it as part of my army, therefore I believe that my opponent should treat it as an enemy model.

You have no real support for your belief though. Quad gun is not a unit in your army page 108: Unlike units, fortifications... . Therefore, the model is not part of your army either.

I have been through the BRB off and on all day looking for a defiitive answer as to what is an enemy model/unit. I have found no answer.
there is mention of an enemy model in the movement section where it tells me I can not end my move within 1" of one. (pg 10)

there is also mention of an enemy unit when I am asked to nominate one as a target when I elect to shoot.(pg12)

again I am told to pick an enemy unit when I wish to assault.(pg 20)
but in all these I am still not made aware of the definition of an enemy unit.

Are the models in your opponents army enemy models? Is his fortification part of his army? Both of these are yes or no answers.
So my answer to the question is still an adamant "no" you can not fire an enemy's quadgun/icarus cannon.
Why?
1. its an enemy model and you can not get within 1" unless you are assaulting it.
2. if you are in base contact with it you are in combat and un-able to fire.

Well, this is a rather tricky question, however, I think this may help. If you look at the Skyshield landing pad, you will note that even if it is purchased by one army, if the opponent reaches it first, they can dictate what position it is in, by the fact that they are "In control" of the equipment. Now, if two different armies are in base to base contact with it, No change in position is given, as they are contesting it. This seems to set a principle that regardless of who buys it, it can still be used by the opposition, since they have in effect claimed it from you. Now, in regards to the aegis defense line, anyone touching or inside it can claim the 4+ cover save, because they are in the area and have the ability to quickly take cover behind it. Now, in regards of being in base to base, if the enemy has taken your aegis defense line and quad gun, and do not destroy it, then they have every right to fire it, until you can take back the position. Now, if you have 2 units in assualt around the quad gun, as there is no other way to have units from two armies touching the quad gun, then consider the quad gun to be contested and unable to be fired, as the guards manning it would have far more important issues on their hand at the present time. Sound fair?

@ Luide while it may not be a unit in my codex. it is still indeed part of my army.

Let's not dismiss the Emplaced Weapons rule in BRB pg 96. I believe it is still relevant to this discussion.

Under Manual Fire:
If a building is occupied (ed. doesn't specify who) a model within can choose to fire one of the emplaced weapons instead of his own.

Under Automated Fire:
If a building is occupied (ed. again, doesn't specify) each emplaced weapon that is not being fired manually automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit (ed. enemy to who? the occupying unit) within range and line of sight.

Now let's look at Gun Emplacement in BRB pg 105:
One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon.

I would submit that the only difference between an Emplaced Weapon and a Gun Emplacement are the rules for adjacency/use, by friendly or enemy.
Plus, the rules for bought fortifications specify no difference from "neutral" fortifications other than a) placement and b) deployment/infiltrate/scout of units within/behind.

 Prophet40k wrote:
@ Luide while it may not be a unit in my codex. it is still indeed part of my army.

Nope, anyone can use it. Killing the quad gun will not give up a VP

@olcottr- what is a "neutral" fortification?

@Jd- where is your information from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On page 96, if you read the whole paragraph ( which I am famous for NOT doing lol)
It states buildings canbe added to you or your opponents army ( implying ownership), it then goes on to mention "neutral" buildings and tells you to treat neutral buildings as dilapidations,

The only problem is that an Aegis Defense Line is not a building. It is a fortification.

@ JD How is a fortification not part of my army? I am confused as to how this is so. On Page 108 of the BRB, the top of the page has large bold letters reading "Choosing Your Army" 3rd paragraph midway through it says "By adding together all the points value of the models you have selected, you can find out the points value of your army".

It doesnt say anything about neutral units, or mention items that can be purchased and then do not belong to you.

There is a detailed explanation of the various elements of an army HQ, EL, TR ect.. it then explains that you can even take allies from a diffrent codex, it tells you that you can take fortifications. All as part of the same army.

Since there is no where in the book where it tells us what an enemy model or unit is, we have to assume they are refering to models and units that are part of your opponents army. A very reasonable and logical assumption. If I have missed where the book explains this please point it out for me. Untill then I will be treating anything purchased as part of my army as mine.. and anything purchased as part of an opponents army as an enemy model.

It is terrain though.. and who owns the terrain that is on the board?

The defense line and the quad-gun are not one of your 'units', they are terrain and enemy models are allowed to move into/next to terrain.

 Prophet40k wrote:
@ JD How is a fortification not part of my army? I am confused as to how this is so. On Page 108 of the BRB, the top of the page has large bold letters reading "Choosing Your Army" 3rd paragraph midway through it says "By adding together all the points value of the models you have selected, you can find out the points value of your army".

Doesn't say anything about owning Battlefield Debris?

Also, the gun emplacement. One model in BtB can fire it (yada yada)

We have permission to use a quad gun on the table. It's not an enemy model as it's Terrain.

@JD but it does! it repeatedly as I have covered uses these terms. Its YOUR model its part of YOUR army, and is a part of YOUR force organizarion chart.
Yet YOU still cant own terrain then? well lets look at the specific rule. lets look up the rules for fortifications on page 114.

"Terrain Type. this tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using YOUR fortification. this can be anything from a line of barricades to a large building".

It doesnt get any more cut and dry than that, clearly the fortification is owned and clearly it is terrain. In this case Battlefield debris.

yes it says any model may.. (yada yada) but lets see what happens when you come into btb with an Enemy Gun Emplacement.

Can you come into btb with enemy models?
Yes, though you must be in assault to do so.
Can you fire weapons while in assault?
No.
Can I assault fortifications?
Yes
Is the Gun emplacement a vehicle?
No.
What happens when you assault a non vehicle and do not kill it?

 Prophet40k wrote:
@JD but it does! it repeatedly as I have covered uses these terms. Its YOUR model its part of YOUR army, and is a part of YOUR force organizarion chart.
Yet YOU still cant own terrain then? well lets look at the specific rule. lets look up the rules for fortifications on page 114.

"Terrain Type. this tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using YOUR fortification. this can be anything from a line of barricades to a large building".

It doesnt get any more cut and dry than that, clearly the fortification is owned and clearly it is terrain. In this case Battlefield debris.

yes it says any model may.. (yada yada) but lets see what happens when you come into btb with an Enemy Gun Emplacement.

Can you come into btb with enemy models?
Yes, though you must be in assault to do so.
Can you fire weapons while in assault?
No.
Can I assault fortifications?
Yes
Is the Gun emplacement a vehicle?
No.
What happens when you assault a non vehicle and do not kill it?

Actually is it an enemy model?
No
Can you assault it
No

It's neutral Terrain. You're trying to use rules for models ...

 grendel083 wrote:
Page 105, it's not a enemy unit, but you are given permission to assault/shoot if.

Wrong, and this is a big problem people haven't realised in the rules. P105 says you may attack the gun in combat, but it doesn't say you can assault it. The assault rules say you can assault an enemy unit. However the gun is always neutral, thus you can never actually charge the gun by RAW.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Page 105, it's not a enemy unit, but you are given permission to assault/shoot if.

Wrong, and this is a big problem people haven't realised in the rules. P105 says you may attack the gun in combat, but it doesn't say you can assault it. The assault rules say you can assault an enemy unit. However the gun is always neutral, thus you can never actually charge the gun by RAW.

Even if that is the case, you can still strike it in close combat. One of the benefits of not needing to stay 1" away like enemy units.

is it a model?
yes
Is it a fortification deployed before "the rest of the terrain of the battle" (pg 118, the battlefield)
fortification
is it yours?
no


then is is an enemy model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It then goes into greater detail on how to place fortifications and further proves ownership on pg120 under "Set up fortifications"

 Prophet40k wrote:
is it a model?
yes
Is it a fortification deployed before "the rest of the terrain of the battle" (pg 118, the battlefield)
fortification
is it yours?
no


then is is an enemy model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It then goes into greater detail on how to place fortifications and further proves ownership on pg120 under "Set up fortifications"

That may be your opinion, however its wrong.

Terrain is not a model, and it is neutral. You bought it but dont own it.

Wow. first you argue that terrain can not be owned, when it has been clearly been pointed out that it is indeed owned.

Your . (Pronoun)
1. (a form of the possessive case of you used as an attributive adjective): Your jacket is in that closet. I like your idea.

Now Terrain is not a model? Lets look at page 2 of the BRB where it explains to us what a model is.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games off Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. to represent all their diffrences, each model has its own characteristics profile"

Do fortifications have a profile? Oh look why yes they do. are they citadel miniatures? Why yes they are. Am I playing a game of Warhammer 40,000 with them.. Holy cow! I am!

Everything we put on the table is a model by the definition of the word.
mod·el
n.
1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.

Fortifications are models. All terrain are models.

Do woods, forests, or ruins have profiles? No. Can I buy woods, forests or ruins as part of an army? No. ok then I agree that I can't own them.
Can I buy fortifications? Yes! Then they are MINE. If you and your opponent would like to make rules stating that it doesnt matter who owns them, but rather who controls them can use them ( as exampled on page 89 bullets F & G ), then by all means go ahead thats between you and your opponent. That is a house ruling as no where in the book does it entitle my opponent to make use of elements in my army.

Unless your opponent is tyranids then they can fire your quad gun (provided your not within 1").

You are paying for the right to place extra terrain(that give a damn good cover save) and to place a extra weapon on the field. It isn't apart of your army it is just conveniently placed where you want it. Many tables have these neutral terrain/fortifications set up randomly, what you are paying for it the ability to place yours and to already have troops manning it.

You don't own that brickwall if your opponent is standing next to it, it is as much his as it is yours.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
Well, this is a rather tricky question, however, I think this may help. If you look at the Skyshield landing pad, you will note that even if it is purchased by one army, if the opponent reaches it first, they can dictate what position it is in, by the fact that they are "In control" of the equipment. Now, if two different armies are in base to base contact with it, No change in position is given, as they are contesting it. This seems to set a principle that regardless of who buys it, it can still be used by the opposition, since they have in effect claimed it from you. Now, in regards to the aegis defense line, anyone touching or inside it can claim the 4+ cover save, because they are in the area and have the ability to quickly take cover behind it. Now, in regards of being in base to base, if the enemy has taken your aegis defense line and quad gun, and do not destroy it, then they have every right to fire it, until you can take back the position. Now, if you have 2 units in assualt around the quad gun, as there is no other way to have units from two armies touching the quad gun, then consider the quad gun to be contested and unable to be fired, as the guards manning it would have far more important issues on their hand at the present time. Sound fair?

This is kind of my thinking in starting this thread... It seems the skyshield has set a precedence that was not clearly written into the quad gun... definately liking the awesome referenecs being given...

 Prophet40k wrote:
Wow. first you argue that terrain can not be owned, when it has been clearly been pointed out that it is indeed owned.

Your . (Pronoun)
1. (a form of the possessive case of you used as an attributive adjective): Your jacket is in that closet. I like your idea.

Now Terrain is not a model? Lets look at page 2 of the BRB where it explains to us what a model is.

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games off Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. to represent all their diffrences, each model has its own characteristics profile"

Do fortifications have a profile? Oh look why yes they do. are they citadel miniatures? Why yes they are. Am I playing a game of Warhammer 40,000 with them.. Holy cow! I am!

Everything we put on the table is a model by the definition of the word.
mod·el
n.
1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.

Fortifications are models. All terrain are models.

Do woods, forests, or ruins have profiles? No. Can I buy woods, forests or ruins as part of an army? No. ok then I agree that I can't own them.
Can I buy fortifications? Yes! Then they are MINE. If you and your opponent would like to make rules stating that it doesnt matter who owns them, but rather who controls them can use them ( as exampled on page 89 bullets F & G ), then by all means go ahead thats between you and your opponent. That is a house ruling as no where in the book does it entitle my opponent to make use of elements in my army.

Still not a model.
Still Terrain.
You might pay points for it, but you don't "own" it.

It's funny that infiltrators can infiltrate into an enemy Bastion. Which you say is an enemy model.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Prophet40k wrote:
is it a model?
yes
Is it a fortification deployed before "the rest of the terrain of the battle" (pg 118, the battlefield)
fortification
is it yours?
no


then is is an enemy model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It then goes into greater detail on how to place fortifications and further proves ownership on pg120 under "Set up fortifications"

That may be your opinion, however its wrong.

Terrain is not a model, and it is neutral. You bought it but dont own it.

But the gun emplacement is a model.

I have pointed out numerous places where ownership is stated.

I have defined ownership. As relates to models in my army.
I have defined models. As per the 40k rule book.

RAW - Models fielded as part of an army are owned. Owned models are diffrent from Models used to represent the battlefield. The may refer to the terrain section for how to treat that particular Model, but at no point does it change the fact that it is owned.

I feel your argument is weak. I have proved my point. All you respond with is "you are wrong because I say so". This is a discussion board where you are not discussing but rather stating an opnion that is not supported by anything is the book.

I challenge you to point out where it says a purchased item is "neutral"?

As to infiltrating into an enemy Bastion or building, they say to treat buildings as vehicles. Enemy fortification = enemy vehicle, you could no more inflitrate in my empty building than I could inflitrate in an enemy empty landraider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I read all the time on these forums that the specific rule trumps the general rule.

general rule < specific rule < army specific rule

Gun Emplacement < Quad-Gun Emplacement < Quad-Gun Emplacement as part of a purchased fortification.

 Prophet40k wrote:
I have pointed out numerous places where ownership is stated.

I have defined ownership. As relates to models in my army.
I have defined models. As per the 40k rule book.

RAW - Models fielded as part of an army are owned. Owned models are diffrent from Models used to represent the battlefield. The may refer to the terrain section for how to treat that particular Model, but at no point does it change the fact that it is owned.

I feel your argument is weak. I have proved my point. All you respond with is "you are wrong because I say so". This is a discussion board where you are not discussing but rather stating an opnion that is not supported by anything is the book.

I challenge you to point out where it says a purchased item is "neutral"?

As to infiltrating into an enemy Bastion or building, they say to treat buildings as vehicles. Enemy fortification = enemy vehicle, you could no more inflitrate in my empty building than I could inflitrate in an enemy empty landraider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I read all the time on these forums that the specific rule trumps the general rule.

general rule < specific rule < army specific rule

Gun Emplacement < Quad-Gun Emplacement < Quad-Gun Emplacement as part of a purchased ADL.

If you feel that way read the infiltrate usr IIRC that states you may infiltrate into an empty building(from memory). Oh look it can't be an enemy model or this wouldn't be allowed. Fortifications are not models, and you don't own terrain.

You continue to use the same statement backed by no fact.

Upon reading the infiltrate rule I will change my view on infiltrating into a building as the wording there make no mention of enemy models only enemy units.

The rule states you can not infiltrate within 12"/18 of enemy UNITS, it makes no mention of MODELS. Is the fortifacation a UNIT? No.. is is a MODEL? Yes.

I have shown where it states that buildings therefore terrain are owned. Please show me where it states that terrain can not be owned.

I have shown you where the definition of model is. Please show me where it gives a better definition

 Prophet40k wrote:
You continue to use the same statement backed by no fact.

Upon reading the infiltrate rule I will change my view on infiltrating into a building as the wording there make no mention of enemy models only enemy units.

The rule states you can not infiltrate within 12"/18 of enemy UNITS, it makes no mention of MODELS. Is the fortifacation a UNIT? No.. is is a MODEL? Yes.

I have shown where it states that buildings therefore terrain are owned. Please show me where it states that terrain can not be owned.

I have shown you where the definition of model is. Please show me where it gives a better definition

So with theory like that you can infiltrate 12" from vehicles w/o passengers. LRBT's, speeders, Empty transports, etc.

Is a ruin a model? No
Is the ADL a model? Still no.
More so is it an enemy model? No and no still.

It doesn't matter if you pay for it. You do not own it.



Oh look Pg 3. Definition of units. What?! Lone models are units. That's outrageous.
Guess that makes Fortifications units/models that I can go within 1" of and embark into. Even if I didn't pay the pts for them.

Oh thank you for finding the definition of unit. I was right in my initial statement that you can not inflitrate in an Enemy fortification.

You are still unconvinced about ownership though.

ok, lets use your logic and see where things take us.
==fortifications are neither models nor are they owned by an enemy.==

I have a unit of killy things that I have moved into within 6" of an occupied fortification.
I wish to shoot the fortification in the shooting phase with my combi-meltaguns. I look to the rules for shooting. On page 12 under shooting it says
"choose a target... To do so you must check range and line of sight to the ENEMY unit you are targeting" rats the fortification is not an enemy .. guess I can't shoot it.
Do not worry though I brought chainfists for my killy unit. Wait till the assault phase baby!
On page 20 it says under the charge sub phase
"Pick one of your units, and declare which ENEMY unit it wishes to charge" OH man...the fortifacation is still not an enemy, I can not charge it either!!!

Perfect example of broken logic.

However If you use the rules as written, and treat purchased fortifacation as an enemy model, you could both shoot and assault it.

I ask you to read page 96 under Fortifacations and Dilapadations. It makes a distinction between items purchased as part of an army and neutral items, and the rules for enemy models differ from neutral models.

 Prophet40k wrote:
Oh thank you for finding the definition of unit. I was right in my initial statement that you can not inflitrate in an Enemy fortification.

You are still unconvinced about ownership though.

ok, lets use your logic and see where things take us.
==fortifications are neither models nor are they owned by an enemy.==

I have a unit of killy things that I have moved into within 6" of a fortification.
I wish to shoot the fortification in the shooting phase with my combi-meltaguns. I look to the rules for shooting. On page 12 under shooting it says
"choose a target... To do so you must check range and line of sight to the ENEMY unit you are targeting" rats the fortification is not an enemy .. guess I can't shoot it.
Do not worry though I brought chainfists for my killy unit. Wait till the assault phase baby!
On page 20 it says under the charge sub phase
"Pick one of your units, and declare which ENEMY unit it wishes to charge" OH man...the fortifacation is still not an enemy, I can not charge it either!!!

Perfect example of broken logic.

However If you use the rules as written, and treat purchased fortifacation as an enemy model, you could both shoot and assault it.



I ask you to read page 96 under Fortifacations and Dilapadations. It makes a distinction between items purchased as part of an army and neutral items, and the rules for enemy models differ from neutral models.

Funny thing about fortifications "buildings" you can't target them if they're not occupied.
Again though, you can infiltrate into them because they're not enemy models/units, as long as they're not occupied.

I have been watching this thread and I do have to ask after seeing this topic and reading into the references made. I have to agree with the previous question by Prophet 40K which asked,

"Where in the rulebook does it define what exactly is an enemy model?"

It doesn't actually define what an enemy model is, and this is problematic which is obviously being shown by this rather ambiguous rule. I can see both sides of this and the logic that goes into it. And I have to say it could pose to cause quite a problem in the tournament seen.

I think before this question is answered an FAQ will need to address purchased fortifications vs neutral fortifications already on the table, as well as the definition of an enemy unit.

It has been a good discussion to read though.

I will agree slightly with Prophet40K on this though in regards to JD, if you are going to state an opinion in a thread like this it makes it sound much more constructive and less argumentative if you provide some level of reference or facts to base your opinions on. I am not trying to take any specific sides in this, but I do believe that type of opinion leads to the name calling and non productive conversations in these posts quite often.

I'm not 100% up on the rules for them since neither myself nor anyoen i play with uses them....

but i woudl have through they woudl work liek an objective. If you are in BTB with it, your unit can use it. If both players are in BTB with it then it is contested (the 2 units are basically busy fighting for control and no-one is free to actually shoot the gun).

That's how i'd play it anyway.

Here we go again with the "they are not enemy models/units again."

Here is the rule on page 96. I will post it here since I believe that you couldn't be bothered to read it.

"In the choosing your army section (page 108), you'll see that you can add some buildings to your army, allowing your troops to deploy in and fight from a strong position. You might also use some of the fortifications as 'neutral' buildings on the battlefield."

After reading that I do not see how anyone can still say a building can not be owned.
Why does it make a distinction between a building in an army and a neutral building?

@ Praxiss, I welcome you to the conversation, I understand your view that control vs ownership is what matters. If the fortifacation was neutral I would totally agree that this is how it should be played. My argument is, how do you control an enemy fortification?

Valid point.


So looking at the rules you quoted, each player can put "their" fortifications n the table. Only their team can make use of them (although I suppose an opposing unit coudl still get a cover save from hising behind them). Say that the chaos players doesn't have the right access codes to use the Eldar quad gun or somesuch.

Alternatively, you could place an ADL/quad/baston/whatever in neutral ground and play it is i said above.

Could be quite a good game actually. Rush in to hold the gun platform and you get the advantage.




Unfortunately i'm not much of a rules lawyer and tend to go with whatever makes the most sense (part of the reason i hang around in the YMDC forum in the first place).

Prophet - so you are saying you can shoot at an empty fortification building then? They are an enemy model, and thus a unit (units are composed of models) and can thus be targetted. Except they cannot be. You can also infiltrate inside an empty one - impossible if they were an enemy model.

@Nosferatu
1. No where did I say you could shoot an empty one. I assume you are refering to the rule on page 93 where it covers attacking buildings. I will change my example in the previous post to clear things up.

2. I agree that it would be impossible to infiltrate within if it was an enemy fortification..

 Prophet40k wrote:
@Nosferatu
1. No where did I say you could shoot an empty one. I assume you are refering to the rule on page 93 where it covers attacking buildings. I will change my example in the previous post to clear things up.

2. I agree that it would be impossible to infiltrate within if it was an enemy fortification..

Good thing there is no such thing as an enemy fortification than.

Interesting note.

Fortress of Redemption, pg 97 3rd paragraph. "Each unit is able to shoot at the other and are able to declare charges against each other, as the occupy adjacent battlements."

According to you this could never happen as the Fortress would be an enemy model/unit."

We have established that there is a diffrence between Fortifications (Owned buildings) and Dilapadions (Neutral buildings).
They even make referance to this in your example.

If it was a Dilapadation. yes your example could come to pass.

If it was a Fortification. No it could not.

So we have to assume that the pictured item is a Dilapadation

 Prophet40k wrote:
If it was purchased as part of an opponents army.

No it couldnt.

If you buy the ADL w/o the gun.

To you thats an enemy model/unit too than?

NOW things are geting interesting!

1. the ADL is not a building it simply offers cover to those behind it.

2. It has no profile, so doesnt fit the requirements to be a unit.

3. It is a model.

To sum up it is an owned model.

 Prophet40k wrote:
the ADL is not a building.

So, it's part of your army isn't it?

So by your standard it's an enemy unit/model/terrain

See edited post above.

 Prophet40k wrote:
NOW things are geting interesting!

I work alot, typing on cellphones are tedious. You get better explanations when I'm at home

So the ADL is an enemy model. You can surround an objective with it and assuming I had no flyers/skimmers etc. You could block it off quite easily.

Oddly enough it's an enemy model, so I guess I can shoot at it. Even charge it than.

(edit) you beat me to the next post.

I do see the potential for abuse this line of thinking leads to.

I can see the future arguments of movement denial this will lead to.

It does not change the fact that it is an owned model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although surrounding an objective with fortifications isnt possible as under placing objectives on pg121.

"No Objective can be placed in, or on, impassable terrain, buildings or fortifications"

 Prophet40k wrote:
(edit) you beat me to the next post.

I do see the potential for abuse this line of thinking leads to.

I can see the future arguments of movement denial this will lead to.

It does not change the fact that it is an owned model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although surrounding an objective with fortifications isnt possible as under placing objectives on pg121.

"No Objective can be placed in, or on, impassable terrain, buildings or fortifications"

It's not in terrain.

It's surrounded by terrain

Ahh yes but that terrain is classified as a "fortification" as it was purchased as part of an army.

 Prophet40k wrote:
Ahh yes but that terrain is classified as a "fortification" as it was purchased as part of an army.

Is it in a fortification?

If I have a fenced in yard, are you in the fence if you're in the yard?

Also seeing now a model has a statline. So the ADL by itself is not an enemy model/unit.

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
Well, this is a rather tricky question, however, I think this may help. If you look at the Skyshield landing pad, you will note that even if it is purchased by one army, if the opponent reaches it first, they can dictate what position it is in, by the fact that they are "In control" of the equipment. Now, if two different armies are in base to base contact with it, No change in position is given, as they are contesting it. This seems to set a principle that regardless of who buys it, it can still be used by the opposition, since they have in effect claimed it from you. Now, in regards to the aegis defense line, anyone touching or inside it can claim the 4+ cover save, because they are in the area and have the ability to quickly take cover behind it. Now, in regards of being in base to base, if the enemy has taken your aegis defense line and quad gun, and do not destroy it, then they have every right to fire it, until you can take back the position. Now, if you have 2 units in assualt around the quad gun, as there is no other way to have units from two armies touching the quad gun, then consider the quad gun to be contested and unable to be fired, as the guards manning it would have far more important issues on their hand at the present time. Sound fair?

This is kind of my thinking in starting this thread... It seems the skyshield has set a precedence that was not clearly written into the quad gun... definately liking the awesome referenecs being given...

Your welcome, and it's always surprising what happens when people get caught up on the simple things. Also, I think logically, and when I look at an amazing fortification that I paid for, but my buddy can screw over just by getting into contact with it, then I tend to think that this happens elsewhere. Also, think of it from the point of the attackers. They just assualted this really well defended position, and found a super shiny new toy. Why ignore it or blow it up, when you can use it yourself?

Prophet - yet you CAN infiltrate inside an enemy-bought fortification. It cannot therefore be an enemy unit.

Your premise is wrong, meaning your conclusions are

@ Nos. I appreciate your opinion. Can you back it with something from the book?

The "you are wrong because I said you are wrong is getting old."

Your premise is that the building is an enemy model; making it an enemy unit, meaning you could shoot at it when empty (you cant) and you could not infiltrate inside it - which you can.

This suggests your premise is wrong

Can you always shoot an enemy unit?

No

There are exceptional conditions that prevent you from shooting enemy units. The empty building rule is just another exceptional condition.

----

OK. Are you ready for it? I am tired of hearing the excuse I am wrong cause everyone says I am wrong.

I'll go ahead and answer the OPs question and stop playing the role of difficult opponent.

This section answers everything.

 Prophet40k wrote:
Can you always shoot an enemy unit?

No

There are exceptional conditions that prevent you from shooting enemy units. The empty building rule is just another exceptional condition.



OK. Are you ready for it?

I found where it says you can not infiltrate in an enemy fortification. This section clears up alot of the argument.

Page 121. Under get this...

"Deploying within a Fortification"

Wow did you not finish the sentence.

It really does clear it up though.

"is only considered to be an enemy unit if it is occupied at the time of redeployment."

So ... if it's not occupied I can infiltrate into your stuffs.

man JD gimme a second to edit.

sheesh

look at edited post. LOL

So the quote shows it is only an enemy unit when occupied. A quad gun cannot be occupied, so is never an enemy unit. So yes, you are wrong.

Maybe as a house rule? I think it would be so much more realistic and fun to just rambo some ones quad.

"The only difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can't move and ether side can go inside" So even if you buy a fortification as a building ether side can use it
"Many building have built-in weapons .... If the building is occupied, a model within can choose to fire one of the emplaced weapons instead of his own ..." So we see that unmanned guns can be fired by ether side
"... If a building is occupied, each emplaced weapon not being fired manually automatically fires at the nearest enemy unit within range" Now while you could say it meant the enemy of the owner i think its fair to say its the enemy of the models inside, as it ownly fires when occupied.
"Battlefield Debris: the basics unless otherwise noted Battlefield Debris is difficult terrain" Now i bring this up because 99% of us (ok not nids) have tanks and once a tank is wrecked it become ... a piece of difficult terrain were it to still count of an enemy model you would not ever be able to move within 1" and we could wall the enemy i with turn one drop pods
"Gun emplacements: though once abandoned to the tides of war, this gun still functions and will serve the cause of carnage once again for anyone who can get to it" .... sure you can call it fluff but lets be frank it also tells us exactly who can use it. Anyone
We also have rules for shooting and assaulting it for times when it is being manned (well i guess that you could shoot it unmanned but only a nid player would do that) ...

Personally i would say that terrain doesn't have a side its just terrain. After all if i infiltrate into your building you can't shoot at or assault a friendly model. That or SM players just dump drop pods and laugh as the wreck of them still forces you to go round.

 Tri wrote:
"Gun emplacements: though once abandoned to the tides of war, this gun still functions and will serve the cause of carnage once again for anyone who can get to it" .... sure you can call it fluff but lets be frank it also tells us exactly who can use it. Anyone
We also have rules for shooting and assaulting it for times when it is being manned (well i guess that you could shoot it unmanned but only a nid player would do that) ..

Gun Emplacements cannot be auto-fired, only Emplaced Weapons. As such, Nids cannot use them. Also, there are rules for attacking it close combat. Whether or not you can charge it has been debated.

 Happyjew wrote:
Gun Emplacements cannot be auto-fired, only Emplaced Weapons. As such, Nids cannot use them. Also, there are rules for attacking it close combat. Whether or not you can charge it has been debated.

I was being complete and commenting on all the ways a building could fire if a unit (friend or foe) was embarked. In the absence of definite answer look to where there is one, building are a type of terrain so we can compare them.

Shooting/Assaulting emplacements ... little odd, seeing as you can't do ether to building unmanned but meh those are the rules ... It's simply giving you the option to attack them or the unit manning it (assuming there is one). You know there's a good chance your flyers coming in next turn ... why risk it, destroy the gun.

does anyone bother to read the rules? look to page 121.

2nd paragraph under "Deploying withing a fortification"

"Units can never deploy inside an enemy fortification, nor can they use pre-game abilities (like scout redeployment) to embark in enemy fortifications before the first turn begins"

a direct quote from the BRB page 121,

Have you found anything out about a quad gun attached to a non-fortification, like an ADL, showing that it is an enemy unit?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


"is only considered to be an enemy unit if it is occupied at the time of redeployment."

So ... if it's not occupied I can infiltrate into your stuffs.

I don't think this is correct; the key word in the rule part you quote is unit. The proximity or otherwise of enemy units has a bearing on the deployment of infiltrators, and that's what this rule part is telling us; if the enemy fortification is occupied, it counts as an enemy unit and infiltrators will have to deploy at least 12" away from it, maybe more depending on LOS; if it's not occupied, they can deploy right next to it, as long as they still obey the distance restrictions to any other nearby enemy units. They still don't have permission to deploy inside the fortification though, as the already quoted rule from earlier on pg 121 tells us. 'Course as soon as the first turn begins they can hot foot it inside if it's empty and show their asses from the windows if they like - just not before the first turn begins.

Which is the point - they are only an enemy unit when occupied; if you cannot occupy them they cannot be an enemy unit at any point

Quad Guns are gun emplacements (BRB pg 104-105), which are a form of battlefield debris, which are a form of terrain. So, they do not grant First Blood or VPs in Purge the Alien.

Regardless of who "owns" it (if such a thing is possible), there is no rule saying that both players cannot use it. Therefore, it is possible to shoot someone with the Quad Gun they purchased.

However, if we look at pg 8, we can see that ownership of a model is determined by the player who included it in his army. This means that an ADL and Quad Gun are in fact owned by the player who purchased them, even though the enemy can make just as much use of them as the controlling player (however counterintuitive the notion).

The final question, therefore, is whether or not you can shoot or attack your own Quad Gun. Pgs 12 and 20 says you can only shoot or charge an enemy unit. However, pg 105 says that gun emplacements can be shot and attacked. Since specific rules override general ones, gun emplacements can be shot at and attacked. Pg 105 does not explicitly grant the ability to charge at gun emplacements, but it does explicitly grant the ability to attack in close combat, which is not possible without first charging. Ergo, It must be possible to charge a gun emplacement.

Furthermore, pg 105 does not specify that you can only shoot or attack a gun emplacement that does not belong to you. Therefore, you can shoot or attack your own Quad Gun.

tldr; version: Yes, an ADL and Quad Gun are "yours", but they behave as if they are neutral.