Does anyone follow specifics for an undocumented ruling on where you can and cant place your Quad Gun or Comms relay when taken with an Aegis?
Does it have to be attached to the Aegis or within a certain distance?
This came up a tournament I played this past weekend. I had always played that the gun had to maintain coherency with the ADL, but my opponent said "show me where it says that. Show me where it says I can't place it anywhere I want"
After looking online a bit, and through the rulebook we didn't find ANY ruling as to where you can or can't place the quad gun, and so he was allowed to put it up in the forth level of a ruin in his deployment zone. Seemed a bit rediculous to me...
Cheesedoodler wrote: This came up a tournament I played this past weekend. I had always played that the gun had to maintain coherency with the ADL, but my opponent said "show me where it says that. Show me where it says I can't place it anywhere I want"
After looking online a bit, and through the rulebook we didn't find ANY ruling as to where you can or can't place the quad gun, and so he was allowed to put it up in the forth level of a ruin in his deployment zone. Seemed a bit rediculous to me...
Did he actually say that? That's someone who gets a 0 for sportsmanship.
Im in agreement, its an add-on/attachement to the Aegis, not a seperate piece of terrainotherwise it would be listed independantly.
Although I was hopful against this because in some cases it would fit what Im trying to do to place the Aegis far up the board with the comms relay in my backfield so I could ensure I had a model within 2 inches beginning of turn 2.
But I also see how stupid demanding to do this would be.
The rules currently suggest that any add-on is exactly that "An Add-on" and should be placed within proximity of the Aegis.
I guess anything more would be bending rules to your benefit but it still wouldnt prevent this coming up in games and I'm sure there are some that find it advantageous to do so.
I've never found anything that suggest it must be contiguous with the ADL. It's been ruled that it doesn't in my area. I use it as a way to essentially extend the ADL.
However, you probably should, but that's GW's fault not mine.
Stoffer wrote: I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag
So if you follow the rules as written, you're a complete douchebag?
It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.
It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.
Except it doesn't specifically tell you to maintain coherency. That's why this thread exists.
Stoffer wrote: I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag
So if you follow the rules as written, you're a complete douchebag?
It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.
Point me a page number where it tells you to maintain coherency. Or even where it refers to it as an upgrade to the defense line.
Calling someone a douchebag for disagreeing with your baseless rule-assumption is pretty inappropriate. Kinda seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.
Except it doesn't specifically tell you to maintain coherency. That's why this thread exists.
"Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defense line sections. Each section of the Aegis defense line must be placed in base to base contact with at least one other section". We all have different views on what competitive environment we want I guess.
It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.
Except it doesn't specifically tell you to maintain coherency. That's why this thread exists.
"Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defense line sections. Each section of the Aegis defense line must be placed in base to base contact with at least one other section". We all have different views on what competitive environment we want I guess.
Yeah. The sections of the Aegis Line have to be touching. That doesn't prove anything.
It says add a Gun Emplacement Quadcannon for 50 points.
Hell, even the picture doesn't have the Quadgun touching.
Rules as written, you pay 50 points to buy up to 8 Aegis sections, and pay 50 more to add in a Gun emplacement. There are no restrictions on placement. Thus it is placed like any other purchased gun emplacement. ie. Wherever you want.
Coherency is for units. The Aegis line isn't a unit.
I'm staggered at the assumptions some users make. If a rule isn't clear, take it to YMDC. Furthermore, if it isn't clear, don't speak as if it's cut and dry. You will 100% guaranteed start an argument. If you disagree with the common ruling, that too will start an argument.
But here, you are disagreeing with a clear lack of restriction on placement. There is no dispute. There is no lack of clarity. You are disagreeing with fact.
Stoffer wrote: I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag
So if you follow the rules as written, you're a complete douchebag?
It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.
Point me a page number where it tells you to maintain coherency. Or even where it refers to it as an upgrade to the defense line.
Calling someone a douchebag for disagreeing with your baseless rule-assumption is pretty inappropriate. Kinda seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
I was talking about general tournament behavior, where we clearly have some different wishes for how people treat each other and what kind of environment we want to play games in. As for the 2nd part, I feel that's a bit out of line vOv
Buying aegis is a prerequisite to purchase the gun. It doesn't have to go with it.
Buying an Inquisitor in Codex: Grey Knights is a prerequisite to purchase henchman. The Inquisitor doesn't have to be with the henchman.
I'm sure there are other examples that was just the first one to come to my mind.
I wouldn't get all poopie pants if someone wanted to split the gun onto the other boardside if they so truly wished.
Also, tournement show me or I'm not following what you "think" it should do.
It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.
Except it doesn't specifically tell you to maintain coherency. That's why this thread exists.
"Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defense line sections. Each section of the Aegis defense line must be placed in base to base contact with at least one other section". We all have different views on what competitive environment we want I guess.
Yeah. The sections of the Aegis Line have to be touching. That doesn't prove anything.
It says add a Gun Emplacement Quadcannon for 50 points.
Hell, even the picture doesn't have the Quadgun touching.
Rules as written, you pay 50 points to buy up to 8 Aegis sections, and pay 50 more to add in a Gun emplacement. There are no restrictions on placement. Thus it is placed like any other purchased gun emplacement. ie. Wherever you want.
Coherency is for units. The Aegis line isn't a unit.
It's an option just like you'll get options to units in any other codex. I'm not sure why you'd treat this profile any differently? It's a unit you buy that has a certain set of upgrade. You even sait it yourself "add" is the key word, you're adding it to the unit. Again, play it as you like, I'm lucky enugh to not really have many of these arguments in the tourmanets played in my area.
I was talking about general tournament behavior, where we clearly have some different wishes for how people treat each other and what kind of environment we want to play games in. As for the 2nd part, I feel that's a bit out of line vOv
Following rules as written is the best form of tournament behavior, because it avoids interpretation-based rules disputes.
The second part was my defense to being called a douchebag for how I place one of my plastic toys in relation to another of my plastic toys.
Kindof seems like a bold thing to call someone for such a simple action, don't you think?
Goat wrote: Buying aegis is a prerequisite to purchase the gun. It doesn't have to go with it.
Buying an Inquisitor in Codex: Grey Knights is a prerequisite to purchase henchman. The Inquisitor doesn't have to be with the henchman.
I'm sure there are other examples that was just the first one to come to my mind.
I wouldn't get all poopie pants if someone wanted to split the gun onto the other boardside if they so truly wished.
Also, tournement show me or I'm not following what you "think" it should do.
Henchman and inquisitor are different unit profiles, this isn't.
Goat wrote: Buying aegis is a prerequisite to purchase the gun. It doesn't have to go with it.
Buying an Inquisitor in Codex: Grey Knights is a prerequisite to purchase henchman. The Inquisitor doesn't have to be with the henchman.
I'm sure there are other examples that was just the first one to come to my mind.
I wouldn't get all poopie pants if someone wanted to split the gun onto the other boardside if they so truly wished.
Also, tournement show me or I'm not following what you "think" it should do.
Henchman and inquisitor are different unit profiles, this isn't.
I was talking about general tournament behavior, where we clearly have some different wishes for how people treat each other and what kind of environment we want to play games in. As for the 2nd part, I feel that's a bit out of line vOv
Following rules as written is the best form of tournament behavior, because it avoids interpretation-based rules disputes.
The second part was my defense to being called a douchebag for how I place one of my plastic toys in relation to another of my plastic toys.
Kindof seems like a bold thing to call someone for such a simple action, don't you think?
I'm not sure how you think that was pointed as you. I made the post before you were even in the thread? There was a discussion about another player earlier which is what my post was about.
I was talking about general tournament behavior, where we clearly have some different wishes for how people treat each other and what kind of environment we want to play games in. As for the 2nd part, I feel that's a bit out of line vOv
Following rules as written is the best form of tournament behavior, because it avoids interpretation-based rules disputes.
The second part was my defense to being called a douchebag for how I place one of my plastic toys in relation to another of my plastic toys.
Kindof seems like a bold thing to call someone for such a simple action, don't you think?
I'm not sure how you think that was pointed as you. I made the post before you were even in the thread? There was a discussion about another player earlier which is what my post was about.
Hmm.
Stoffer wrote:I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag
Sounds aimed at everyone who doesn't place their purchased terrain in contact with their ADL's.
I put my Quad gun at least 3 inches away from my ADL every time. All the time. So does everyone at my LGS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MarkyMark wrote: Exactly, its like saying I am going to purchase a marine with plasma cannon and put the plasma cannon elsewhere.
If :
>a plasma cannon was a terrain piece
>it didn't say "One MARINE can take"
>a marine unit wasn't a unit
>A marine unit taking said plasma cannon was a fortification
I was talking about general tournament behavior, where we clearly have some different wishes for how people treat each other and what kind of environment we want to play games in. As for the 2nd part, I feel that's a bit out of line vOv
Following rules as written is the best form of tournament behavior, because it avoids interpretation-based rules disputes.
The second part was my defense to being called a douchebag for how I place one of my plastic toys in relation to another of my plastic toys.
Kindof seems like a bold thing to call someone for such a simple action, don't you think?
I'm not sure how you think that was pointed as you. I made the post before you were even in the thread? There was a discussion about another player earlier which is what my post was about.
Hmm.
Stoffer wrote:I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag
Sounds aimed at everyone who doesn't place their purchased terrain in contact with their ADL's.
I put my Quad gun at least 3 inches away from my ADL every time. All the time. So does everyone at my LGS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MarkyMark wrote: Exactly, its like saying I am going to purchase a marine with plasma cannon and put the plasma cannon elsewhere.
If :
>a plasma cannon was a terrain piece
>it didn't say "One MARINE can take"
>a marine unit wasn't a unit
>A marine unit taking said plasma cannon was a fortification
Then your comparison would be relevant.
Hey listen, we have different opinions on this. I think if you buy an upgrade to your ADL, place the ADL on the ground and your quad gun on the 4th level of a ruin (which was the example above), you're about as unsportsmanlike as it gets. You're welcome to disagree all you want
The picture in the book is a horrible angle. That being said, this has come up before. For the Bastion, it clearly can be placed elsewhere per the photo. However, all else being said, I generally put it behind my adl, (which is as cramped as possible) so it can benefit from a cover save after I've posed off my opponent wrecking his flyer the moment it comes in.
For an Update on our tournament shenanigans (guy puts the quad gun up on the roof of a ruin) the TO has announced that for all future games at our FLGS the quad gun can be placed no further than 1" from the ADL.
My question is now answered, and I can't believe what the waac types think... "Tell me where it says I can't put in the roof of a building on the other side of the map." Seriously?
I know that YMDC is strictly a "RAW" forum, but I would truly hate to play games with a good number of the posters here...
Cheesedoodler wrote: I know that YMDC is strictly a "RAW" forum, but I would truly hate to play games with a good number of the posters here...
Honestly, most people don't play strict RAW or even the position htey argue from. I argued against Abbadon joining marked units, I had no problem with him doing so. I've argued that Wraithguard cannot shoot or assault, not letting them do it is just silly. I'll argue that a blast weapon cannot allocate wounds to unit completely out of sight from the firing unit, but (afaik) nobody plays it that way. I think there are only a few WaaC players who actually hang out here. Most of us are trying to learn the rules properly so we can make a good (read fair) call mid-game without having to resort to that stupid TMIR.
Cheesedoodler wrote: I know that YMDC is strictly a "RAW" forum, but I would truly hate to play games with a good number of the posters here...
Then you're falling into the classic failure of assuming that everyone here argues the way they play.
That's demonstrably untrue in many cases. I would venture a guess that 95% of the "good number" of posters you would hate to play a game against are very close to your silly chart.
Happyjew wrote: I'll argue that a blast weapon cannot allocate wounds to unit completely out of sight from the firing unit
Off-topic, but you're completely wrong. BRB p33, "Blast & Large Blast," last sentence of middle column. Be a better reader.
Instead of insulting someone, maybe think about how nothing on page 33 overrides page 16's Out of Sight rule.
Page 33 allows you to wound the unit - populate the wound pool. Cite permission to allocate wounds.
Or don't - at least not in this thread. Open a new one if you want to disagree and I'll debate you.
If so you still can't put it on top of ruins since it must be 3"s away from any other terrain.
Also, you should be placing it BEFORE you place any other terrain.
The only reason i wouldn't want to put my quad gun directly behind my ADL is so you can't put a building directly in front of it, instead put it a few inches back and at an angle so it's harder to block it's LOS.
I've started placing my ADL like this VS less shooty armies to stop terrain from blocking LOS.
approx with the diamond as the gun.
_ _ ___ _
_/_\-9"-/ --\
___\ /
____♦
It's hard to tell exactly how you ADL would actually look on the tabletop from your diagram, but as long as all the pieces of the ADL are touching at least 1 other piece and there is only 1 "chain" of ADL pieces, you can make whatever shape you want.
If I'm playing against alot of barrage weapons, I'll set mine up in rows with the small sections keeping each row connected to the one in front of it. (at least i did the few times I actually used the ADL)
That way there will be cover for some of the unit no matter where the hole of the template lands.
Pretty much a BIG M with a deep V and short sides. It puts a good 9 inches of space in front of the quad gun where you can't place terrain.
One thing though could you make a ADL like so, I say yes.
As I have seem chains that are not a single line but are all connected and branch off (Think about a tow truck pulling something.)
Goat wrote: Buying aegis is a prerequisite to purchase the gun. It doesn't have to go with it.
Buying an Inquisitor in Codex: Grey Knights is a prerequisite to purchase henchman. The Inquisitor doesn't have to be with the henchman.
That is a poor example. I can buy a Hunter-killer for my Land Raider, but put it anywhere I want? Why not? Show me where it says it must go with the Land Raider. It is an option under Land Raider, suggesting that it goes with the Land Raider.
Just like the gun emplacement is an option for an ADL.
Edit: To clarify, I think the idea that you putting a weapon anywhere on the table is ridiculous. The weapon is bought as an option for the ADL, just like I can buy a hunter-killer as an option for a Land Raider. If you're going to put your quad-gun anywhere you like, then I'm going to put the lascannon side-sponsons option from my predators on each one of my land speeders instead.
jegsar wrote: So... is the gun emplacement a piece of terrain?
If so you still can't put it on top of ruins since it must be 3"s away from any other terrain.
Also, you should be placing it BEFORE you place any other terrain.
Yes the ADL and the Gun Emplacement that is purchased as an option to the ADL, is Battlefield Debris, and as such must be 3 inches from the ruins.
They are also placed before any other terrain and as such can not be on top of a ruin.
OP your opponent was incorrect, show him Page 114 (Covers the ADL and the optional Gun Emplacement) Page 104&105 (these pages show that defense lines and Gun Emplacements are Battlefield Debris.) and P.120 that tells us about placing Fortifications and terrain, and how no terrain (Battlefield Debris included) can be within 3" of another piece of terrain.
ansacs wrote: Actually doesn't this add an additional question? Can the ADL and gun emplacement which are both terrain pieces be placed within 3" of each other?
As they are one singular fortification, and Battlefield Debris, they must be deployed in a cluster.
"Each 'piece' of terrain should be a single substantial element (such as a building, forest or ruin) or a cluster of up to three smaller pieces of terrain (such as batdefield debris)." P.120
"Each 'piece' of terrain should be a single substantial element (such as a building, forest or ruin) or a cluster of up to three smaller pieces of terrain (such as batdefield debris)." P.120
Ah thank you. So not only is putting the quad-gun anywhere on the table ridiculous, it is also against the rules.
clively wrote: On topic: clustered is the only thing that makes sense and DeathReaper makes a very good argument for that.
Now define "clustered". Exactly how far can the quad gun be from the closest section of aegis line and still be "clustered", and what rule (page number please) are you using to determine that distance?
clively wrote: On topic: clustered is the only thing that makes sense and DeathReaper makes a very good argument for that.
Now define "clustered". Exactly how far can the quad gun be from the closest section of aegis line and still be "clustered", and what rule (page number please) are you using to determine that distance?
Well GW does not define Clustered, so we call back upon the standard English Definition of Clustered, which means close together.
People will have varying degrees of 'Close' but within 3 inches should be a good compromise.
DeathReaper wrote: Well GW does not define Clustered, so we call back upon the standard English Definition of Clustered, which means close together.
And that tells us nothing, because "close" is just as undefined as "clustered". All you've done is use a synonym to express the exact same idea.
People will have varying degrees of 'Close' but within 3 inches should be a good compromise.
Why do we have to compromise instead of playing by the actual rules of the game? And why should anyone else accept your opinion that 3" is a good compromise, instead of 4", 10", "anywhere on the same table", etc?
In short, you have not given any support in the rules of 40k, all you've managed to do is say "they have to be within 3" because I said so".
DeathReaper wrote: Well GW does not define Clustered, so we call back upon the standard English Definition of Clustered, which means close together.
And that tells us nothing, because "close" is just as undefined as "clustered". All you've done is use a synonym to express the exact same idea.
People will have varying degrees of 'Close' but within 3 inches should be a good compromise.
Why do we have to compromise instead of playing by the actual rules of the game? And why should anyone else accept your opinion that 3" is a good compromise, instead of 4", 10", "anywhere on the same table", etc?
In short, you have not given any support in the rules of 40k, all you've managed to do is say "they have to be within 3" because I said so".
This is just being willfully ignorant. You understand what a cluster is. You also understand that GW does not always define every single word that they use in the rulebook and that they expect their gamers to inject some sort of logic into their gameplay. That said, instead of trying to eek out every advantage you can on the battlefield by trying to argue that a cluster of debris is 10" apart (I mean, how badly do you need to win at toy soldiers?), perhaps you can divine what you know about 'clusters' and talk to your opponent about it in a fashion based on gamesmanship and fair play.
Otherwise, I'm sure there'll be some explaining to do to the TO about your definition of cluster versus anyone else's.
clively wrote: On topic: clustered is the only thing that makes sense and DeathReaper makes a very good argument for that.
Now define "clustered". Exactly how far can the quad gun be from the closest section of aegis line and still be "clustered", and what rule (page number please) are you using to determine that distance?
Base contact. Since the walls have to be in base contact and the gun is part of the "unit" it should be as well.
puma713 wrote: You understand what a cluster is. You also understand that GW does not always define every single word that they use in the rulebook and that they expect their gamers to inject some sort of logic into their gameplay.
So how does all of that translate into a specific maximum distance between the gun and the closest section of the aegis line?
That said, instead of trying to eek out every advantage you can on the battlefield by trying to argue that a cluster of debris is 10" apart (I mean, how badly do you need to win at toy soldiers?),
That's why my opponents and I always set up terrain in a layout we're both happy with before rolling to choose sides, and we ignore the book method entirely and just set it up in a way that looks about right. So there would be no point in arguing about a cluster of debris because there's no rule limiting where we can place the individual sections, 10" away is just "close" or "two separate terrain features" depending on how you want to describe it.
perhaps you can divine what you know about 'clusters' and talk to your opponent about it in a fashion based on gamesmanship and fair play.
Of course you should talk to your opponent. But how do you go from "talk to your opponent" to declaring that a 3" limit is the answer? And how is a house rule between two individual players relevant to a discussion of what the rules of the game actually say?
Otherwise, I'm sure there'll be some explaining to do to the TO about your definition of cluster versus anyone else's.
I would expect the TO to follow RAW unless they have explicitly stated that they will be imposing a specific distance limit as a house rule for their event. If a TO tried to impose that limit in the middle of the game I would pack up my stuff, leave their event, and never return.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: Base contact. Since the walls have to be in base contact and the gun is part of the "unit" it should be as well.
1) The gun is not a wall section, therefore that limit is completely irrelevant.
2) The picture in the book clearly shows the gun NOT in base contact, therefore any "interpretation" of the rules that demands base contact is obviously nonsense.
Peregrine wrote: I would expect the TO to follow RAW unless they have explicitly stated that they will be imposing a specific distance limit as a house rule for their event. If a TO tried to impose that limit in the middle of the game I would pack up my stuff, leave their event, and never return.
The RAW is fairly vague, so we should use the least advantageous interpretation.
But "taking your ball and going home" seems like a very mature way of going about it
DeathReaper wrote: Well GW does not define Clustered, so we call back upon the standard English Definition of Clustered, which means close together.
And that tells us nothing, because "close" is just as undefined as "clustered". All you've done is use a synonym to express the exact same idea.
People will have varying degrees of 'Close' but within 3 inches should be a good compromise.
Why do we have to compromise instead of playing by the actual rules of the game? And why should anyone else accept your opinion that 3" is a good compromise, instead of 4", 10", "anywhere on the same table", etc?
In short, you have not given any support in the rules of 40k, all you've managed to do is say "they have to be within 3" because I said so".
We use a close distance. People will have differing views of what close is, but 25 inches away is not in anyone's definition of close in relation to the scale of the game. A normal Infantry base is 1 inch round. Unit coherency is within 2 inches. Disembark is up to, but totally within, 6 inches. We get a sense of close from the rules themselves.
Given that infantry can move 6 inches in one phase, then up to 6 inches apart for battlefield debris, should be an acceptable distance, and fits the definition of a cluster.
Anything further than that does not fit the definition of cluster, as things need to be close together.
If you have the gun further away from the ADL than a normal infantry model could feasibly reach in one move, then it clearly is no longer close by.
Regardless of what happens though the Gun can not be on top of a ruin.
DeathReaper wrote: Given that infantry can move 6 inches in one phase, then up to 6 inches apart for battlefield debris, should be an acceptable distance, and fits the definition of a cluster.
This is nothing more than your opinion.
Anything further than that does not fit the definition of cluster, as things need to be close together.
Again, just your opinion, not the rules.
If you have the gun further away from the ADL than a normal infantry model could feasibly reach in one move, then it clearly is no longer close by.
Why are we measuring things by the distance an infantry model can go in one move instead of comparing it to the range of a Basilisk?
And even if we use that standard how do you get 2"/3"/in base contact/etc instead of within 9" (6" + average run distance)?
Regardless of what happens though the Gun can not be on top of a ruin.
Peregrine wrote: And even if we use that standard how do you get 2"/3"/in base contact/etc instead of within 9" (6" + average run distance)?
Close is subjective to a point, but I would be fine with "9" (6" + average run distance)", we have several things that need to be close (Like units within coherency)
At maximum I would say 12 (or 13 because of a certain warlord trait) inches would be the extreme boundary for close. The book says this as well
"Warriors who charge through difficult terrain are subject to deadly salvoes of close range fire and must advance more cautiously." P. 22
Close range fire must mean 12 inches or less (or 13 w/ Trait), as they speak of units charging are subject to close range fire, and we know units can not charge if they are out of range.
DeathReaper wrote: Regardless of what happens though the Gun can not be on top of a ruin.
According to what rule?
According to the rule that you place Fortifications before Terrain...
Might want to re-read the Fighting a battle section on P. 118 (Specifically P. 120 that tells you that fortifications are set up before other terrain...)
DeathReaper wrote: The RAW is fairly vague, so we should use the least advantageous interpretation.
No, RAW is not vague at all. You just don't like that RAW doesn't give you the distance limit that you want to impose.
But "taking your ball and going home" seems like a very mature way of going about it
No, it's the perfectly sensible thing to do when a TO is determined to pull rulings out of their ass and change the rules in the middle of the game because they don't like what you just did. The game ceases to be a fair game and becomes nothing more than "push your models around the table the way the TO tells you to, and then the TO picks a winner".
puma713 wrote: You understand what a cluster is. You also understand that GW does not always define every single word that they use in the rulebook and that they expect their gamers to inject some sort of logic into their gameplay.
So how does all of that translate into a specific maximum distance between the gun and the closest section of the aegis line?
There is no specific maximum distance. At least, that's the answer I think you're looking for. Since GW doesn't give a definition of "cluster", then the game breaks. But, I assume you want to play the game that you're debating about, so you come to a reasonable conclusion between the two gamers. I mean, you're wanting an answer that isn't in the book. You and I both know this. Why are you going in circles about it?
That said, instead of trying to eek out every advantage you can on the battlefield by trying to argue that a cluster of debris is 10" apart (I mean, how badly do you need to win at toy soldiers?),
That's why my opponents and I always set up terrain in a layout we're both happy with before rolling to choose sides, and we ignore the book method entirely and just set it up in a way that looks about right. So there would be no point in arguing about a cluster of debris because there's no rule limiting where we can place the individual sections, 10" away is just "close" or "two separate terrain features" depending on how you want to describe it.
Why are we even discussing this then? If you're house-ruling your terrain setup, then house-rule your ADL setup. The point of the debate is to determine how close a gun emplacement needs to be to its ADL. The pieces need to be in a cluster. To say that the trees in your deployment zone are a part of a cluster of trees located also in my deployment zone is being obtuse and arguing for the sake of arguing. That's not what we're supposed to be doing here. We're supposed to be trying to reach an understanding of what the rules say. When we come to an impasse with what the rules say, then all you can discuss is the next reasonable solution.
perhaps you can divine what you know about 'clusters' and talk to your opponent about it in a fashion based on gamesmanship and fair play.
Of course you should talk to your opponent. But how do you go from "talk to your opponent" to declaring that a 3" limit is the answer? And how is a house rule between two individual players relevant to a discussion of what the rules of the game actually say?
See above. The rules say cluster. Since you cannot fathom what a cluster is outside of the rulebook, you must house-rule it. Trying to explain why your house-rule of 10" is better than his house-rule of 3" is going to be a task.
Otherwise, I'm sure there'll be some explaining to do to the TO about your definition of cluster versus anyone else's.
I would expect the TO to follow RAW unless they have explicitly stated that they will be imposing a specific distance limit as a house rule for their event. If a TO tried to impose that limit in the middle of the game I would pack up my stuff, leave their event, and never return.
Then you'd be leaving many events. TOs make difficult decisions that are not based upon RAW, but also RAI, as some RAW is utterly ridiculous. Would you pack up your things and leave if the TO didn't allow you to shoot from your wraithguard because they have no eyes from which to draw LoS? Because I could argue that. I could stand firm, knowing that your models have no eyes and say that there is no way in the rules for you to draw LoS to me. If the TO sides with me, you'd happily scoot along with your useless models?
I think not. A TO would not rule that you could not shoot with your models. He'd rule that I was being unreasonable and that you could shoot all you like. It is just a game, after all.
DeathReaper wrote: According to the rule that you place Fortifications before Terrain...
Might want to re-read the Fighting a battle section on P. 118 (Specifically P. 120 that tells you that fortifications are set up before other terrain...)
Of course. But the scenario assumes that you've decided to use an alternate method (for example, a tournament that uses pre-set terrain placed by the TO at the beginning of the day) where the ruin is on the table before the gun is placed, otherwise it's just nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
puma713 wrote: [Since GW doesn't give a definition of "cluster", then the game breaks.
No it doesn't. The game doesn't break at all, it just doesn't impose a maximum distance between elements of a "cluster". You can still play it just fine.
I mean, you're wanting an answer that isn't in the book. You and I both know this. Why are you going in circles about it?
Because people keep pretending that their "within 3" of the wall" arguments are actually supported by the book instead of being just their personal opinion about how GW should have written the rules.
See above. The rules say cluster. Since you cannot fathom what a cluster is outside of the rulebook, you must house-rule it. Trying to explain why your house-rule of 10" is better than his house-rule of 3" is going to be a task.
That's why I don't impose a 10" limit. I am arguing for playing it RAW: the gun can be placed anywhere it is legal for you to place a fortification, regardless of where you place the wall sections.
Would you pack up your things and leave if the TO didn't allow you to shoot from your wraithguard because they have no eyes from which to draw LoS?
Yes, because that's obviously stupid and a legitimately game-breaking issue. That's entirely different from declaring an arbitrary limit to how far away the gun can be placed based on nothing more than their personal preference that it has to be "close".
DeathReaper wrote: According to the rule that you place Fortifications before Terrain...
Might want to re-read the Fighting a battle section on P. 118 (Specifically P. 120 that tells you that fortifications are set up before other terrain...)
Of course. But the scenario assumes that you've decided to use an alternate method (for example, a tournament that uses pre-set terrain placed by the TO at the beginning of the day) where the ruin is on the table before the gun is placed, otherwise it's just nonsense.
And now read page 120 "Terrain can be placed anywhere on the board where it is more than 3" from other terrain." Note the ADL with gun is Battlefield Debris, and needs to be in a cluster, but it also needs to be further than 3" away from other terrain.
DeathReaper wrote: And now read page 120 "Terrain can be placed anywhere on the board where it is more than 3" from other terrain." Note the ADL with gun is Battlefield Debris, and needs to be in a cluster, but it also needs to be further than 3" away from other terrain.
This is describing how terrain is set up in a method which the scenario rules out. This has nothing to do with placing a fortification in an entirely separate step of the "set up the table" process, where no such limit exists.
Yes, Assign bias, thats a great way to discuss rules...
Sorry, but when people openly admit that their answer to the question is based on what is "fair" or "a good compromise" and not on the rules of the game then it's pretty obvious that the problem isn't ambiguous rules, it's that those people don't like what the rules say.
puma713 wrote: [Since GW doesn't give a definition of "cluster", then the game breaks.
No it doesn't. The game doesn't break at all, it just doesn't impose a maximum distance between elements of a "cluster". You can still play it just fine.
So, where in the rules does it tell you what a cluster is? You must put your battlefield debris in a cluster. Without a definition of cluster, you cannot place them. If you place them in such a way that is not defined by the rulebook, then I am going to ask you where you got permission to place it in such a way. You will say "in the rules for Fortifications". To which I will ask you where it defines how to place a cluster of battlefield debris. To which there is no answer.
I mean, you're wanting an answer that isn't in the book. You and I both know this. Why are you going in circles about it?
Because people keep pretending that their "within 3" of the wall" arguments are actually supported by the book instead of being just their personal opinion about how GW should have written the rules.
Okay? Why are you letting it get you so worked up? Those people that are arguing that way are doing so because that is a reasonable conclusion. It is much more reasonable, given the rules and context provided in the rulebook, that you put your gun emplacement together with the ADL. Unless you're okay with me placing any option I buy for a vehicle on any other vehicle I want. I mean, I can pay for the option for a flamestorm cannon on a Baal Predator, but since there's no rule defining how I can place these options, I can just put them anywhere I like, like on my land speeder. I mean, just because it is says it is an option for the Baal, doesn't mean it has to go with the Baal, right?
See above. The rules say cluster. Since you cannot fathom what a cluster is outside of the rulebook, you must house-rule it. Trying to explain why your house-rule of 10" is better than his house-rule of 3" is going to be a task.
That's why I don't impose a 10" limit. I am arguing for playing it RAW: the gun can be placed anywhere it is legal for you to place a fortification, regardless of where you place the wall sections.
That is not RAW. RAW is that it is battlefield debris and battlefield debris is clustered together. You placing it anywhere you want is not "clustered together".
Would you pack up your things and leave if the TO didn't allow you to shoot from your wraithguard because they have no eyes from which to draw LoS?
Yes, because that's obviously stupid and a legitimately game-breaking issue. That's entirely different from declaring an arbitrary limit to how far away the gun can be placed based on nothing more than their personal preference that it has to be "close".
Umm, not to me. I may feel that you being able to shoot from your wraithguard is against the rules. But you'd leave if the TO didn't agree with you that you could shoot. But, on the same token, you'd leave if the TO didn't agree that you could place your gun emplacement anywhere. Sounds like Molly wants it her way.
To me, you wanting to place your gun emplacement anywhere on the board is just as "obviously stupid and a legitimately game-breaking issue" as is you not being able to shoot from a model with no eyes.
Peregrine wrote: Sorry, but when people openly admit that their answer to the question is based on what is "fair" or "a good compromise" and not on the rules of the game then it's pretty obvious that the problem isn't ambiguous rules, it's that those people don't like what the rules say.
And Based on that you think that I "don't like what the rules say."?
Interesting conclusion. Incorrect as well.
I do not care either way, if they can truly be placed anywhere that is fine, but there is actual evidence against it.
puma713 wrote: It is much more reasonable, given the rules and context provided in the rulebook, that you put your gun emplacement together with the ADL. Unless you're okay with me placing any option I buy for a vehicle on any other vehicle I want. I mean, I can pay for the option for a flamestorm cannon on a Baal Predator, but since there's no rule defining how I can place these options, I can just put them anywhere I like, like on my land speeder. I mean, just because it is says it is an option for the Baal, doesn't mean it has to go with the Baal, right?
Puma has said it all. (Specifically the underlined).
puma713 wrote: So, where in the rules does it tell you what a cluster is? You must put your battlefield debris in a cluster. Without a definition of cluster, you cannot place them. If you place them in such a way that is not defined by the rulebook, then I am going to ask you where you got permission to place it in such a way. You will say "in the rules for Fortifications". To which I will ask you where it defines how to place a cluster of battlefield debris. To which there is no answer.
Since no definition is given then it is assumed to be a personal opinion thing depending on how the person placing the items in a cluster feels about it. It's just like how the narrative terrain placement method doesn't attempt to define "like a real battlefield" and just leaves it up to the aesthetic preferences of the person or people setting up the terrain.
Not that it matters, since there's no requirement for the components of an aegis line fortification to be set up in a cluster.
Okay? Why are you letting it get you so worked up?
Because people keep pretending that their house rule isn't a house rule, which is confusing to less experienced players who might not be aware that the rules are different from the house rule.
Those people that are arguing that way are doing so because that is a reasonable conclusion. It is much more reasonable, given the rules and context provided in the rulebook, that you put your gun emplacement together with the ADL.
Define "together with".
I mean, I can pay for the option for a flamestorm cannon on a Baal Predator, but since there's no rule defining how I can place these options, I can just put them anywhere I like, like on my land speeder.
Of course there is a rule, because the official model for the Baal Predator contains a flamestorm cannon and a location for it. There is no rule that allows you to modify the Baal Predator model to place its flamestorm cannon anywhere else.
That is not RAW. RAW is that it is battlefield debris and battlefield debris is clustered together. You placing it anywhere you want is not "clustered together".
Please cite where battlefield debris is required to be clustered together.
To me, you wanting to place your gun emplacement anywhere on the board is just as "obviously stupid and a legitimately game-breaking issue" as is you not being able to shoot from a model with no eyes.
Nonsense.
Not being able to shoot or assault with a model without eyes breaks the game. Forget wraithlords, any model with a helmet on is unable to shoot (since a helmet lens is not an eye) which results in both entire armies being unable to do anything but move around the table and do nothing until the game finally ends and puts the players out of their misery. This is an obviously broken state that has no resemblance to anything that could be called 40k.
Being able to place a gun emplacement anywhere you want does not break the game. It might give an advantage to a player that you don't want them to have, but the game proceeds normally and works just fine. In fact, since you can deploy gun emplacements as terrain features entirely outside of the fortification FOC slot it can't break the game, since any location where I could put an aegis line quad gun is also a location where I could put a battlefield debris gun emplacement in the "place terrain" step and it's completely irrelevant where the gun came from.
In short, you need to learn the difference between "breaking the game" and "not working exactly the way I want it to".
puma713 wrote: Those people that are arguing that way are doing so because that is a reasonable conclusion. It is much more reasonable, given the rules and context provided in the rulebook, that you put your gun emplacement together with the ADL.
Define "together with".
The Rules actually do that for us.
"units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered and the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" " P. 11
Stick together = Together with. 2" is defined as sticking together which is a synonym of together with.
puma713 wrote: RAW is that it is battlefield debris and battlefield debris is clustered together. You placing it anywhere you want is not "clustered together".
Please cite where battlefield debris is required to be clustered together.
"Each 'piece' of terrain should be a single substantial element (such as a building, forest or ruin) or a cluster of up to three smaller pieces of terrain (such as battlefield debris)." P. 120
A Cluster = together, as that is the English Definition of Cluster.
"units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered and the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" " P. 11
A fortification is not a unit. This rule is irrelevant. And besides that you're using "stick together" from the fluff description, which is even more irrelevant.
"Each 'piece' of terrain should be a single substantial element (such as a building, forest or ruin) or a cluster of up to three smaller pieces of terrain (such as battlefield debris)." P. 120
This is a rule from the "alternating terrain placement" method of setting up terrain, which is just one of the allowed methods for setting up non-fortification terrain. The fact that in one unrelated context there is a rule that tells you to place a cluster of items chosen from the "battlefield debris" section is completely irrelevant to the rules for placing fortifications. Similarly, the fact that one proposed method for setting up terrain involves using clusters of items from the "battlefield debris" section does not mean that every other time you use items from the "battlefield debris" section you must also set them up in a cluster.
Fortifications are terrain... So it is 100% related...
The Gun is an upgrade (Option) for the ADL. Same as a Sponson Lascannon is an upgrade (Option) for a Predator. therefore options need to be on/with the things they were bought for.
Are you serious at this point, or are you trolling us, I seriously can not tell.
But either way, We gave answers backed by the rules, choose to ignore them if you wish. It makes no difference to me.
DeathReaper wrote: Fortifications are terrain... So it is 100% related...
And your point is? You're quoting a rule from one method of setting up non-fortification terrain. The fact that in an entirely separate step (remember, alternating terrain placement is done after fortifications are already on the table) you set up certain things in a cluster has absolutely nothing to do with how you're allowed to set up things outside of that step.
But either way, We gave answers backed by the rules, choose to ignore them if you wish. It makes no difference to me.
No, you just quoted random rules that have nothing to do with aegis lines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote: The Gun is an upgrade (Option) for the ADL. Same as a Sponson Lascannon is an upgrade (Option) for a Predator. therefore options need to be on/with the things they were bought for.
And your point is?
The sponson lascannon on the Predator is placed where the model requires it to be placed. There is no other location where you can place it without modifying the model, and the rules do not give you permission to modify the model.
The gun emplacement from an aegis line is a separate component which is not necessarily placed in contact with the other components. There is no dispute on this, the only argument is over whether there is a limit on how far away it can be placed and, if so, what that limit is.
It isn't very difficult to see how these two situations have absolutely nothing in common.
puma713 wrote: So, where in the rules does it tell you what a cluster is? You must put your battlefield debris in a cluster. Without a definition of cluster, you cannot place them. If you place them in such a way that is not defined by the rulebook, then I am going to ask you where you got permission to place it in such a way. You will say "in the rules for Fortifications". To which I will ask you where it defines how to place a cluster of battlefield debris. To which there is no answer.
Since no definition is given then it is assumed to be a personal opinion thing depending on how the person placing the items in a cluster feels about it. It's just like how the narrative terrain placement method doesn't attempt to define "like a real battlefield" and just leaves it up to the aesthetic preferences of the person or people setting up the terrain.
Not that it matters, since there's no requirement for the components of an aegis line fortification to be set up in a cluster.
Except that an ADL is battlefield debris, and on page 120, you're given an example that battlefield debris is to be setup in a cluster. But since you're going to argue that that is a different section, I think it is time that we agree to disagree.
Okay? Why are you letting it get you so worked up?
Because people keep pretending that their house rule isn't a house rule, which is confusing to less experienced players who might not be aware that the rules are different from the house rule.
And what you're offering is better? Why? Why is your interpretation of a vague rule (which you've yet to show is RAW) better than ours? Because you say it is? As far as I am concerned, we have multiple pages at least suggesting our interpretation to be correct. All you have done is try to refute what we've said rather than supply your own rules.
Those people that are arguing that way are doing so because that is a reasonable conclusion. It is much more reasonable, given the rules and context provided in the rulebook, that you put your gun emplacement together with the ADL.
Define "together with".
Seriously? I mean, I'd really like to know, since we're done discussing rules - do you honestly sit there at the gaming table and waste 10 minutes of your game time explaining why you think you should be able to place your gun emplacement halfway across the field from the fortification it was bought for? Or do you simply impose upon the people you are playing with that you are correct and that they should just accept that simply because an option was purchased for something, doesn't mean it belongs to that thing at all?
I mean, I can pay for the option for a flamestorm cannon on a Baal Predator, but since there's no rule defining how I can place these options, I can just put them anywhere I like, like on my land speeder.
Of course there is a rule, because the official model for the Baal Predator contains a flamestorm cannon and a location for it. There is no rule that allows you to modify the Baal Predator model to place its flamestorm cannon anywhere else.
What are you talking about? All the rule says is replace the twin-linked assault cannon with a flamestorm cannon. I did that. I removed my assault cannon and replaced it with a flamestorm cannon. . .that I put on my land speeder. I mean, just because it is an option for the Baal, doesn't mean it belongs to the Baal, just as the gun emplacement doesn't belong to the ADL, right? So, next, I'm taking the side sponsons and putting it on. . I dunno. . a dreadnought I guess. This could get fun!
All the options say are "May take the following". . .but since those options don't belong to the Baal, as you've pointed out with your ADL example, I can put them anywhere. The flamestorm is a more restrictive example because you have to trade something in. Take the side sponsons - they are worded exactly like the gun emplacement, and they don't come standard on the Baal model.
That is not RAW. RAW is that it is battlefield debris and battlefield debris is clustered together. You placing it anywhere you want is not "clustered together".
Please cite where battlefield debris is required to be clustered together.
Page 120. And before you claim that that page is talking about something else, please be aware that this is something in the rules pointing you to a defintion of how to setup battlefield debris. This piece of language is a lot more helpful than you simply refuting it because you want to place your gun emplacement anywhere. Try to remember the Law of Economy: "Don't multiply beyond necessity." Meaning if you have to create exceptions or deny that facts exist to make your interpretation work, you're probably doing too much work. It is also called Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is probably the correct one. It is more likely that you're allowed to place the gun anywhere on the board, or like weapon purchased for vehicles, that the gun goes with the item it was purchased for?
To me, you wanting to place your gun emplacement anywhere on the board is just as "obviously stupid and a legitimately game-breaking issue" as is you not being able to shoot from a model with no eyes.
Nonsense.
Not being able to shoot or assault with a model without eyes breaks the game. Forget wraithlords, any model with a helmet on is unable to shoot (since a helmet lens is not an eye) which results in both entire armies being unable to do anything but move around the table and do nothing until the game finally ends and puts the players out of their misery. This is an obviously broken state that has no resemblance to anything that could be called 40k.
That's not true. All of my Dark Eldar can shoot. I'm sorry you brought a non-functioning army to the table, but I can play within the rules. If you don't do what I say, I'm just gonna pack up and go home.
Peregrine wrote: [Being able to place a gun emplacement anywhere you want does not break the game. It might give an advantage to a player that you don't want them to have, but the game proceeds normally and works just fine. In fact, since you can deploy gun emplacements as terrain features entirely outside of the fortification FOC slot it can't break the game, since any location where I could put an aegis line quad gun is also a location where I could put a battlefield debris gun emplacement in the "place terrain" step and it's completely irrelevant where the gun came from.
In short, you need to learn the difference between "breaking the game" and "not working exactly the way I want it to".
You have to place battlefield debris, which, despite your best efforts, you haven't proven an ADL and its gun not to be, in a cluster. This is from page 120. This is the only rule we have when discussing placing battlefield debris. If you have others rules in regard to placing battlefield debris (which an ADL is), please refer us to a page and paragraph. Thanks.
If you do not place it in a cluster, then you are breaking a rule. Since we do not know what a cluster is, you cannot place an ADL at all, actually. 'Breaks the game' is a euphimism for a rule that doesn't work because the designers didn't think it through or write clear rules. Certainly you can play the game without placing your ADL and your gun. Just like you can play the game without any of your guys being able to shoot. It doesn't break the game at all. It just makes it really easy for me to win! Just because the rules don't work the "way you want them to" doesn't mean they cease to function. Sorry they forgot to put eyes on your models.
The sponson lascannon on the Predator is placed where the model requires it to be placed. There is no other location where you can place it without modifying the model, and the rules do not give you permission to modify the model.
That's not true. He didn't put it on the Baal predator at all. He simply purchased it for the Baal predator. He didnt' have to modify the model, he simply put the option elsewhere, just like you're diong.
Peregrine wrote: The gun emplacement from an aegis line is a separate component which is not necessarily placed in contact with the other components. There is no dispute on this, the only argument is over whether there is a limit on how far away it can be placed and, if so, what that limit is.
It isn't very difficult to see how these two situations have absolutely nothing in common.
That's interesting. So, the Baal predator can't put its options anywhere because they modify they model (even though the sponson is a separate component that you have to place on the model), but the gun emplacement can be put anywhere, even though it is a separate component that you have to place with the model.
puma713 wrote: Except that an ADL is battlefield debris, and on page 120, you're given an example that battlefield debris is to be setup in a cluster. But since you're going to argue that that is a different section, I think it is time that we agree to disagree.
FFS, this is not complicated. There are two separate statements:
Statement 1 (page 120): place a cluster of battlefield debris.
Statement 2 (what you think it says): battlefield debris must always be placed in a cluster.
Can you really not see the difference between these two statements?
And what you're offering is better? Why?
Because mine is what the rules actually say, while yours is what (as people openly admit) you want it to say and think is fair.
Why is your interpretation of a vague rule (which you've yet to show is RAW) better than ours?
There's nothing vague at all. Since there is no limit on how far away the gun can be you can place it anywhere you want, following the normal limits for where a fortification can be placed (in your half of the table, not within 3" of another fortification).
What are you talking about? All the rule says is replace the twin-linked assault cannon with a flamestorm cannon.
Read the directions for assembling the model. It tells you exactly where to place the flamestorm cannon, and no rule gives you permission to place it anywhere else.
That's not true. All of my Dark Eldar can shoot. I'm sorry you brought a non-functioning army to the table, but I can play within the rules. If you don't do what I say, I'm just gonna pack up and go home.
FFS, can you really not see the difference between "my Tau army can't shoot at all because they all have helmets on" and "that quad gun over there was purchased with an aegis line instead of placed there in terrain setup"?
You have to place battlefield debris, which, despite your best efforts, you haven't proven an ADL and its gun not to be, in a cluster. This is from page 120. This is the only rule we have when discussing placing battlefield debris. If you have others rules in regard to placing battlefield debris (which an ADL is), please refer us to a page and paragraph. Thanks.
Sigh.
1) The "alternating terrain placement" rules on page 120 give one optional method for setting up terrain. When you are using this method you place a cluster of battlefield debris items. If you are not using this method (and you aren't using it when you place fortifications, since that's a separate step) none of those rules apply. Just like "move up to D6" from the run rules doesn't mean that you can only ever move D6" when moving in the movement phase.
2) This gives one way in which battlefield debris can be placed. That is NOT the same thing as a rule stating that battlefield debris is always placed that way. You are turning one instance of placing battlefield debris into a universal rule for how it must always be placed, and that is not what the rules say.
Leth wrote: Why can't you guys accept he is arguing it for the lawyers in the audience. He is doing literal you are doing interpretation.
It's not even an interpretation. It's "I think it would be fairer if we change it to work this way", and they openly admit it.
Not at all, you just ignore our rules quotes. If the rules truly said that the gun can be placed anywhere I would be fine with that, but they don't.
P. 120 tells us how to place terrain, the ADL is terrain. Battlefiled debris to be exact, and we know from P. 120 we can place a single piece of terrain (Like a Bastion, or Skyshield Landing Pad). or a cluster of Battlefield Debris (Like an ADL with its optional gun).
If you do not place the gun with the bastion it is not a single piece of terrain and you are breaking rules.
If you do not place the gun in a cluster with the ADL you are breaking rules.
Because you haven't quoted any relevant rules. What you have done is the equivalent of quoting "move up to D6" when making a run move" in a debate on how far a model moves in the movement phase.
If the rules truly said that the gun can be placed anywhere I would be fine with that, but they don't.
You can't place it anywhere. You have to follow the rules for placing a fortification, which require it to be placed in your half of the table and more than 3" from any other fortification. Since no other restrictions are stated in the rules those are the only limits you have to follow.
P. 120 tells us how to place terrain, the ADL is terrain. Battlefiled debris to be exact, and we know from P. 120 we can place a single piece of terrain (Like a Bastion, or Skyshield Landing Pad). or a cluster of Battlefield Debris (Like an ADL with its optional gun).
If you are using the "alternating terrain placement" method of placing terrain. Not only is this not the only way of placing terrain, it isn't even the preferred method of placing terrain (since you use it if you can't agree on an acceptable arrangement using the narrative method).
If you are using the narrative placement method the "cluster" rule does not apply, since you follow those rules and not the rules for the method you aren't using.
If you are placing a fortification the "cluster" rule does not apply, since you are dealing with an entirely separate step in setting up the table.
If you are placing a crater (an item of battlefield debris) from a destroyed vehicle the "cluster" rule does not apply, since it says to place a single crater, not a cluster of battlefield debris which includes at least one crater.
If you are placing battlefield debris for any reason other than step #3 of alternating terrain placement the "cluster" rule does not apply.
If you do not place the gun in a cluster with the ADL you are breaking rules.
Only if you are placing a defense line and gun emplacement in step #3 of the alternating terrain placement method. If you are placing an aegis line fortification then the instructions in step #3 do not apply.
And you have yet to define "cluster", or give even the slightest amount of evidence from the rules (as-printed, not your opinion of what they should say) that any given distance between objects in the cluster is too far.
If you want to say you can put the Gun Emplacement anywhere on the table that is fine, but by the RAW the Gun Emplacement can never be placed because it is not a fortification.
DeathReaper wrote: If you want to say you can put the Gun Emplacement anywhere on the table that is fine
I already conceded that this is not legal. The gun emplacement still has to obey all of the rules for where you can legally place a fortification, I only dispute your invented "rule" that it has to be within a certain distance of the wall segments.
but by the RAW the Gun Emplacement can never be placed because it is not a fortification.
Of course it's a fortification. It says very clearly in the aegis line entry that it is a fortification.
DeathReaper wrote: but by the RAW the Gun Emplacement can never be placed because it is not a fortification.
Of course it's a fortification. It says very clearly in the aegis line entry that it is a fortification.
No the ADL is a fortification, the Gun emplacement is not.(It is an option to the fortification, but not a fortification itself, as you can not purchase just a Gun Emplacement in your fortification slot).
DeathReaper wrote: No the ADL is a fortification, the Gun emplacement is not.(It is an option to the fortification, but not a fortification itself, as you can not purchase just a Gun Emplacement in your fortification slot).
Ok, we agree then. The gun emplacement is part of the aegis line. Since the aegis line is part of a fortification, so is the emplacement. Just like a sergeant is part of a tactical squad, and the whole thing is a troops unit. So:
1) Since the gun emplacement is part of a fortification it is set up in the fortification step, and the "cluster" rule on page 120 is not relevant since it applies to something being done in the terrain step.
2) Since the gun emplacement is part of a fortification the entire aegis line fortification must be set up following the rules for fortifications (entirely within your half of the table, not within 3" of another fortification).
3) All of the wall sections must be deployed as a continuous structure, in the legal area designated by the rules in point #2.
4) Since no additional limits are imposed on the location of the gun emplacement it may be placed anywhere in the legal area designated by the rules in point #2.
Your assumption that the gun must be placed "near" the wall, or in a "cluster" with the wall, or within some arbitrary distance of the wall, is not supported in any way by the rules. Nothing in the rules even suggests that there are additional limits beyond those in point #2, making any attempt to argue otherwise a blatant attempt to turn a house rule on what "should" happen into a supposed part of the standard rules.
Funny, DeathReaper, that the rulebook FAQ refer's to the ADL's gun emplacement as being attached to the ADL, isn't it? And they keep referring to the "Fortification's" gun emplacements.
. . .it's almost as if they meant for the gun emplacement to be attached or be a part of the fortification. Silly rules.
When I read the entirety of this thread, I could not believe how this could be much of a problem.
Look at it this way.
The Aegis defense line has its' own rule set. So we must follow it. Why I say as such is simple.
You pay the points for the Aegis defense line. Under the sub headings there are options you can take, so you buy either comms relay or the lascannon thingy or the Quad Cannon.
What you buy with the Aegis Defense Line, it also goes along with it. It is because it is under the sub heading, that is why you cannot split it apart. It is an upgrade of the line that comes with the line, thus goes with the line.
If we split it up, it is like you buy a Missle launcher for a Long Fang and you say I could put it somewhere far away from the long fang. WTF?
wallacethe5 wrote: What you buy with the Aegis Defense Line, it also goes along with it. It is because it is under the sub heading, that is why you cannot split it apart. It is an upgrade of the line that comes with the line, thus goes with the line.
Now define "with the line". Exactly how far away from the closest wall section are you allowed to place the gun? There obviously isn't any requirement to put it in contact with any of the wall sections (since the picture shows it some distance away), and there is no maximum distance given anywhere in the rules.
wallacethe5 wrote: What you buy with the Aegis Defense Line, it also goes along with it. It is because it is under the sub heading, that is why you cannot split it apart. It is an upgrade of the line that comes with the line, thus goes with the line.
Now define "with the line". Exactly how far away from the closest wall section are you allowed to place the gun? There obviously isn't any requirement to put it in contact with any of the wall sections (since the picture shows it some distance away), and there is no maximum distance given anywhere in the rules.
The picture doesn't show it "some distance away", it shows it about half an inch away from the wall.
puma713 wrote: The picture doesn't show it "some distance away", it shows it about half an inch away from the wall.
The point is that it's not in contact. You are clearly allowed to place it separate from any of the wall sections, the only dispute is over whether you can place it anywhere a fortification can legally be placed (RAW), or whether there's some limit on how far away it can be (how some people want it to be).
puma713 wrote: The picture doesn't show it "some distance away", it shows it about half an inch away from the wall.
The point is that it's not in contact. You are clearly allowed to place it separate from any of the wall sections, the only dispute is over whether you can place it anywhere a fortification can legally be placed (RAW), or whether there's some limit on how far away it can be (how some people want it to be).
I'm not the one that refers to the emplacement as attached to the ADL, GW is (Main Rulebook FAQ, pg. 8, left column). And just because you put (parenthesis) around your ideas does not make them correct or true. It simply means that you're having to clarify what you believe, because no one else understands how you could be playing it the way you seem to be.
puma713 wrote: I'm not the one that refers to the emplacement as attached to the ADL, GW is (Main Rulebook FAQ, pg. 8, left column).
That FAQ refers to the wall sections, not the gun emplacement.
And just because you put (parenthesis) around your ideas does not make them correct or true. It simply means that you're having to clarify what you believe, because no one else understands how you could be playing it the way you seem to be.
Ok, if what I said in the parentheses isn't true then could you cite exactly where it says that (as has been proposed here) the emplacement has to be within 3" of a wall section? Because if you can't then it is a house rule, not the rules of the game.
wallacethe5 wrote: What you buy with the Aegis Defense Line, it also goes along with it. It is because it is under the sub heading, that is why you cannot split it apart. It is an upgrade of the line that comes with the line, thus goes with the line.
Now define "with the line". Exactly how far away from the closest wall section are you allowed to place the gun? There obviously isn't any requirement to put it in contact with any of the wall sections (since the picture shows it some distance away), and there is no maximum distance given anywhere in the rules.
How many rules can you quote that don't use an undefined term or word?
Even the most RAW obsessed hardcore player makes a ton of assumptions about every rule in the game, most of these are trivial (meaning of common english words) but many are an assumed concensus. Computers play pure RAW not people.
I'll have a look when I get home but I expect this is just an unclear rule that cannot be played without a certain amount of subjective interptretation, Assuming that 40k can be played properly without subjecitve interpretation is in my opinion giving the rules a level of credit for conciseness and robustness they in no way deserve.
Do I see in the rules where it says you can move it 30 yards away from the Aegis Line? No, I don't see it there. Doesn't mean you can do it?
All I see in the rule book is a picture showing the gun near the Aegis line. Do I see a picture in the rule book saying you can put it far 60 yards away? No.... I see a no mention on how far you can put the gun, but I see a picture that shows how close the gun is to the Aegis line.
puma713 wrote: I'm not the one that refers to the emplacement as attached to the ADL, GW is (Main Rulebook FAQ, pg. 8, left column).
That FAQ refers to the wall sections, not the gun emplacement.
Ummm, no:
Can you shoot at a gun emplacement attached to an Aegis defence line?
Yes - see page 105 for a gun emplacement's profile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: Looks like something tournies will need to FAQ. Rulebook isn't clear on how close / how far away it can be imo, RAW.
I would agree with this. That it is not clear. However, in trying to play in the least advantageous way and going off three or four different rules in the rulebook, I would place my gun emplacement at least with my ADL.
BRB page 114 : Fortifications : Options. This section lists any additional weapons, wargear or upgrades the fortification can have, and the points cost
of each.
Aegis Defense line : Options : Gun emplacement with quad-gun 50points
The gun emplacement with quad gun is an option for the ADL. An option for the ADL is "additional weapons/wargear/upgrades" the fortification can have.
The quad gun is not a separate piece, it is an additional upgrade for the fortification (in this case the ADL), just as any other items have upgrades to the initial model.
"Even the picture doesn't show it touching" .. actually, yes it does. Take a closer look. It is TOUCHING the rest of the ADL at the back side.
ok skimmed this so pardon me if i missed it.
Way back when the one person said show me where it can't.
Isn't one of the overriding gw rules that unless it says you can you can't.
So therefore it comes with the aegis it stays with the aegis unless it says you can put it somewhere else.
Is that a hold over from an older edition? or Am I imagining it?
canadianguy wrote: ok skimmed this so pardon me if i missed it.
Way back when the one person said show me where it can't.
Isn't one of the overriding gw rules that unless it says you can you can't.
So therefore it comes with the aegis it stays with the aegis unless it says you can put it somewhere else.
Is that a hold over from an older edition? or Am I imagining it?
Warhammer relies on a Permissive rule set. If you don't have permission (or if you have something restricting permission) you cannot do something. For example: I have permission to assault in the assault phase (permission). Disembarking from a vehicle overrides this permission (restriction). If the vehicle has the assault vehicle special rule, it overrides the restriction.
The ADL comes with up to 4 long and 4 short ADL sections which must be in base contact with one other ADL section. I have permission to purchase a Comm Relay or Gun emplacemnt. There is no restriction (that I'm seeing) on where to place, as it is not an ADL section.
Honestly, I'm not sure if you are wrong. I generally place it within my ADL ring, but not necessarily touching a section. The picture for the ADL is ambiguous, it might be touching, it might not be. The picture for the Bastion, however, is very clear that not only does it not need to be on top of the Bastion, it doesn't even need to touch.
Cheesedoodler wrote: This came up a tournament I played this past weekend. <snip>
After looking online a bit, and through the rulebook we didn't find ANY ruling as to where you can or can't place the quad gun, and so he was allowed to put it up in the forth level of a ruin in his deployment zone. Seemed a bit rediculous to me...
First all he cheated. Aegis Def lines go down before terrain does so there would be no forth level of a ruin on the table. Even if the TO allowed him to place it separate you cannot place a terrain piece within 3 inches of another one so he was wrong there.
I would suggest the 3" figure is good for the following reason. All fortifications must be more than 3" away from other fortifications, since you only have permission to place 1 fortification, by the above definition by placing the quad gun over 3" away from the wall you have placed 2 fortifications, for which you have no permission. Therefore you must place it within 3".
AndrewC wrote: I would suggest the 3" figure is good for the following reason. All fortifications must be more than 3" away from other fortifications, since you only have permission to place 1 fortification, by the above definition by placing the quad gun over 3" away from the wall you have placed 2 fortifications, for which you have no permission. Therefore you must place it within 3".
Comments?
Andrew
That makes no sense, sorry. How are you getting from 'fortifications must be 3"apart' to 'being 3" apart makes it two fortifications' ?
P120. The distance between terrain pieces is to differentiate them, yes? So by placing the gun over 3" away you have disassociated it from the main fortification, thereby creating confusion as to whether it is one or two pieces.
Cheers
Andrew
PS I have used terrain and fortification since Fortification=terrain, but terrain =/= fortification
AndrewC wrote: P120. The distance between terrain pieces is to differentiate them, yes?
No. Rules about distances between fortications and terrain are there just for game balance and to make sure one area of board is not cluttered too much. Exactly same reason as the rules for terrain density limit exists.
There's nothing in the rules, or even in the "Forging a narrative" section one could construe to mean the distance rule is because "we want to differentiate them" from each other.
AndrewC wrote: So by placing the gun over 3" away you have disassociated it from the main fortification, thereby creating confusion as to whether it is one or two pieces.
As said earlier, the premise of this argument is flawed, so it is null and void.
dragqueeninspace wrote: How many rules can you quote that don't use an undefined term or word?
All of them, in this case. For example, infantry models in a unit must remain "close" to each other, but the rules clearly define the maximum legal distance between models as 2". There is no guessing about how far apart is "fair" or "a reasonable compromise" or whatever, the book tells you what the maximum distance is and how to measure it. And then in other cases (vehicle squadrons, for example), it gives a different maximum distance number.
The only "ambiguity" here is brought in by people who want the rules to impose a distance limit even when they do not.
wallacethe5 wrote: Do I see in the rules where it says you can move it 30 yards away from the Aegis Line? No, I don't see it there. Doesn't mean you can do it?
No, because the standard table is not 30 yards across. The rules are very clear on where you may place the gun emplacement: anywhere entirely within your half of the table and more than 3" from any other fortification. There are no additional limits given in the rules, so anywhere that meets those two conditions is legal.
Boss GreenNutz wrote: Even if the TO allowed him to place it separate you cannot place a terrain piece within 3 inches of another one so he was wrong there.
That is not true at all. If you are using the "alternating terrain placement" method for setting up the table you must place the terrain pieces more than 3" away from each other while doing that process. That restriction does not apply at any other time (for example, if you place a crater for an exploded vehicle it does not have to be 3" away from any other terrain).
Since fortifications are not placed during the "alternating terrain placement" process that rule is irrelevant, and the only rule that applies is the limit for fortifications: at least 3" from any other fortification. There is no limit on where they can be in relation to non-fortification terrain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
canadianguy wrote: But you have no specific permission to put it outside of what it was purchased from as an upgrade.
Yes, because you haven't even defined "outside". If I deploy my walls in a single straight line where is "inside" and where is "outside"? You might attempt to argue that it must be "behind" the line, but how far behind it is legal? And from what angle do we look when determining whether the gun is "behind" the line (after all, I can always find an angle that puts the gun behind the line no matter where it is on the table)? You probably have your own personal idea about what "makes sense" on this subject, but you haven't given any actual rules that support your opinion.
Not that it really matters, because there is no rule that says anything about imposing additional location restrictions beyond "in your half of the table" and "not within 3" of another fortification". Since no additional restrictions are stated you just follow the standard rules for determining where you can legally place a fortification.
Replace "outside" with "with" or "attached to" with holy fing word splicing
Its an upgrade for the aDL.
So would you then say the gun for the bastian can be placed anywhere in your half vs putting it on the top of the bastian?
canadianguy wrote: Replace "outside" with "with" or "attached to" with holy fing word splicing
Words have meanings you know. If you want to cite a rule you need to define what the rule says, you can't just say "place it over there because I said so or you're TFG". "Outside", "with", "attached to", etc, are all very different things and you can't use them interchangeably.
Show me a rule where it ays you can place it anywhere?
I won't, because there is no such rule. The rules are very clear about where you can place it: anywhere entirely within your half of the table and more than 3" from any other fortification. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that even suggests that the gun emplacement follows any location rules other than the standard ones for a fortification.
It isn't a seperate fortification it is an upgrade for one.
And it is legal to place it as far away from the walls as you like. There is no rule stating how close together the pieces of a single fortification have to be.
So, just to clarify then.
You would argue that any upgrade for any fortification can be placed anywher in your deployment area because GW didn't specify you couldn't. You then fall back to placing fortification rules and treat the original and the upgrades as 2 completely seperate pieces.
If that is true do the quad guns in this scenario act as fortifications or a unit?
canadianguy wrote: You would argue that any upgrade for any fortification can be placed anywher in your deployment area because GW didn't specify you couldn't. You then fall back to placing fortification rules and treat the original and the upgrades as 2 completely seperate pieces.
No, not any fortification. It would depend on the fortification.
A fortification that has a specific location for an upgrade on the model (for example, upgrading the missiles on a fortress of redemption) is just an upgrade to the model like any other upgrade to a model (taking a melta gun on a tactical squad, for example).
A fortification that has an upgrade that is a separate model (the aegis line and its upgrades) is two (or more) separate models which are placed according to the standard rules for where you can place a fortification unless there are additional restrictions imposed for that particular fortification (for example, the rule that all of the wall sections have to form a continuous chain).
Since the gun emplacement is the second case, a separate model, it follows those rules.
If that is true do the quad guns in this scenario act as fortifications or a unit?
As fortifications, because they're fortifications (or, to be more precise, part of a fortification).
Ok
Think I get the crux of it.
Aegis line doesn't haver a set place to put ermplaced weapons therefore it is seperate and you can place it as a seperate fortification.
In that case could you even put the quad gun within 2 inches of an aegis line as that would break the distance barrier mentioned when placing terrauin?
The bastion however has set sites for emplaced weapons pg 97
"The bastian also has several emplaced weapons: a hvy bolter on each facing and an icarus lascannon on the roof"
So it would be one fortification with multiple emplacements?
Based on the replies, since your never given permission for the QG to be placed seperately then it must be in contact with a section of the wall.
The only possible exception that I can see is in P91 for area terrain. (And this may also be a holdover from earlier editions) If the ADL is set up in a completely enclosed shape the QG can be placed anywhere within the bondaries of the wall.
Peregrin, scince you are only allowed by the rules to place 1 fortification how do you tally the fact that you have placed 2? The ADL & QG?
ansacs wrote: Actually doesn't this add an additional question? Can the ADL and gun emplacement which are both terrain pieces be placed within 3" of each other?
As they are one singular fortification, and Battlefield Debris, they must be deployed in a cluster.
"Each 'piece' of terrain should be a single substantial element (such as a building, forest or ruin) or a cluster of up to three smaller pieces of terrain (such as batdefield debris)." P.120
This should have ended it. Pretty clear here what they want you to do with the gun.
canadianguy wrote: Ok
Think I get the crux of it.
Aegis line doesn't haver a set place to put ermplaced weapons therefore it is seperate and you can place it as a seperate fortification.
In that case could you even put the quad gun within 2 inches of an aegis line as that would break the distance barrier mentioned when placing terrauin?
The bastion however has set sites for emplaced weapons pg 97
"The bastian also has several emplaced weapons: a hvy bolter on each facing and an icarus lascannon on the roof"
So it would be one fortification with multiple emplacements?
First, the ADL cannot get emplaced weapons. Second the emplaced heavy bolters are typically one on each side, it is not mandatory. Third, the Icarus Lascannon on the Bastion is a Gun Empalcement, not an emplaced weapon.
Cheesedoodler wrote: This came up a tournament I played this past weekend. I had always played that the gun had to maintain coherency with the ADL, but my opponent said "show me where it says that. Show me where it says I can't place it anywhere I want"
I always hate it when people say that.
My response would be "Show me where the rules forbid me to throw all your models on the ground and declare victory because you have nothing left!" and that would probably shut them up.
Warhammer rules tell you what you CAN do, not what you can't do.
And if you want to do something than you better give a ruling that allows you to do such a thing.
After looking online a bit, and through the rulebook we didn't find ANY ruling as to where you can or can't place the quad gun, and so he was allowed to put it up in the forth level of a ruin in his deployment zone. Seemed a bit rediculous to me...
The ADL + Quad should be placed before the ruins, that's why he couldn't do that.
canadianguy wrote: You would argue that any upgrade for any fortification can be placed anywher in your deployment area because GW didn't specify you couldn't. You then fall back to placing fortification rules and treat the original and the upgrades as 2 completely seperate pieces.
No, not any fortification. It would depend on the fortification.
A fortification that has a specific location for an upgrade on the model (for example, upgrading the missiles on a fortress of redemption) is just an upgrade to the model like any other upgrade to a model (taking a melta gun on a tactical squad, for example).
A fortification that has an upgrade that is a separate model (the aegis line and its upgrades) is two (or more) separate models which are placed according to the standard rules for where you can place a fortification unless there are additional restrictions imposed for that particular fortification (for example, the rule that all of the wall sections have to form a continuous chain).
Since the gun emplacement is the second case, a separate model, it follows those rules.
If that is true do the quad guns in this scenario act as fortifications or a unit?
As fortifications, because they're fortifications (or, to be more precise, part of a fortification).
You may purchase the Quadgun as an upgrade to the ADL. You now treat the quad gun as a fortification of it's own. You place the ADL and the Quad Gun in separate locations. By placing an ADL and a Quad gun as 2 separate pieces, you are therefore placing 2 fortifications; You have no permission (without a 2nd detachment) to place more than 1 fortification. You have therefore broken the rules.
Rorschach9 wrote: You may purchase the Quadgun as an upgrade to the ADL. You now treat the quad gun as a fortification of it's own. You place the ADL and the Quad Gun in separate locations. By placing an ADL and a Quad gun as 2 separate pieces, you are therefore placing 2 fortifications; You have no permission (without a 2nd detachment) to purchase more than 1 fortification.
Rorschach9 wrote: You may purchase the Quadgun as an upgrade to the ADL. You now treat the quad gun as a fortification of it's own. You place the ADL and the Quad Gun in separate locations. By placing an ADL and a Quad gun as 2 separate pieces, you are therefore placing 2 fortifications; You have no permission (without a 2nd detachment) to purchase more than 1 fortification.
FTFY.
Fine, you have no permission to purchase more than 1 fortification. Therefore, if the Quadgun is being treated as a fortification, you cannot purchase it as you have already purchased the ADL. Same results (if you cannot purchase it, you cannot place it).
Except there is no Fortification called "Weapon Emplacement" or "Comm Relay". Both the ADL and the Weapon Emplacement/Comm Relay are classified as Battlefield Debris. They take up one FOC Slot, similar to a unit and their DT. Currently the only rules regarding deployment of the ADL is that the actual sections must be in base contact with each other. There is absolutely no rule on where to place the Weapon Emplacement/Comm Relay. There is also no rule saying your Land Raider Sponsons have to be on the Land Raider itself, however, that would definitely be called MFA and I doubt you would find many people to play with.
The Weapon Emplacement (Quad Gun/Lascanon) and Comm relay are "options" for the ADL. These options are clearly defined as "additional wargear". Where do you place "additional wargear"?
Depends. Some options must be modeled on the model (per almost every codex). Other options can be completely separate from the unit that purchases it, such as dedicated transports.
ansacs wrote: Actually doesn't this add an additional question? Can the ADL and gun emplacement which are both terrain pieces be placed within 3" of each other?
As they are one singular fortification, and Battlefield Debris, they must be deployed in a cluster.
"Each 'piece' of terrain should be a single substantial element (such as a building, forest or ruin) or a cluster of up to three smaller pieces of terrain (such as batdefield debris)." P.120
This should have ended it. Pretty clear here what they want you to do with the gun.
Is it? I see nothing there that defines how close together they need to be in order to be a 'cluster'.
ansacs wrote: Actually doesn't this add an additional question? Can the ADL and gun emplacement which are both terrain pieces be placed within 3" of each other?
As they are one singular fortification, and Battlefield Debris, they must be deployed in a cluster.
"Each 'piece' of terrain should be a single substantial element (such as a building, forest or ruin) or a cluster of up to three smaller pieces of terrain (such as batdefield debris)." P.120
This should have ended it. Pretty clear here what they want you to do with the gun.
Is it? I see nothing there that defines how close together they need to be in order to be a 'cluster'.
The English Definition tells us that a cluster needs to be close together.
insaniak wrote: Is it? I see nothing there that defines how close together they need to be in order to be a 'cluster'.
Not only that, but the rule he's quoting is from the "alternating terrain placement" process, not a universal rule defining how battlefield debris is always placed. He's taking a rule that says "place a cluster" and misquoting it as if it says "you must always place these items in a cluster".
Kangodo wrote: The ADL + Quad should be placed before the ruins, that's why he couldn't do that.
Well, the premise of the situation is a game where that rule has been changed (for example, a tournament where the TO places all of the terrain at the beginning of the day). If you're in that situation then yes, you may place a quad gun on top of a ruin as long as it follows the normal rules for where an emplacement can be (own table half, 3" from other fortifications) since there is no rule saying that, for purposes of placing fortifications, terrain features are in any way special.
AndrewC wrote: Based on the replies, since your never given permission for the QG to be placed seperately then it must be in contact with a section of the wall.
Err, what? Where are you getting that from? The relevant rules governing quad gun placement are "in your half of the table" and "not within 3" of another fortification", the standard rules for where a fortification can be placed. The burden is on YOU to show a rule that says that quad guns are treated differently.
And of course the picture in the book showing the gun NOT touching any wall sections is a pretty clear sign that it doesn't have to follow the rule that the wall sections have to form a continuous chain.
The only possible exception that I can see is in P91 for area terrain. (And this may also be a holdover from earlier editions) If the ADL is set up in a completely enclosed shape the QG can be placed anywhere within the bondaries of the wall.
Where are you getting this rule from? Aegis lines are not area terrain, and there is no rule that says anything at all about them functioning differently depending on whether or not they're in a closed shape.
Peregrin, scince you are only allowed by the rules to place 1 fortification how do you tally the fact that you have placed 2? The ADL & QG?
You haven't. You've placed a single fortification that consists of several independent pieces of plastic.
Peregrine wrote: Well, the premise of the situation is a game where that rule has been changed (for example, a tournament where the TO places all of the terrain at the beginning of the day). If you're in that situation then yes, you may place a quad gun on top of a ruin as long as it follows the normal rules for where an emplacement can be (own table half, 3" from other fortifications) since there is no rule saying that, for purposes of placing fortifications, terrain features are in any way special.
That's another problem One shouldn't come here because his houserules broke a rule and he is wondering how to fix it.
In cases like that we can only tell him how we would play it, since the BRB doesn't cover stuff like "what to do if I changed the rules and now I am in trouble"
insaniak wrote: Which still doesn't answer the question. How close is 'close together' ?
2"? Since that is what models require to be in coherency with their unit.
Infantry, Bikes, and Monstrous Creatures are required to maintain 2" coherency. Vehicles have 4" coherency. Since the ADL is not Infantry/Bike/Monstrous Creature we cannot use the 2" restriction. Since it is not a vehicle we cannot use the 4" restriction.
Happyjew wrote: Infantry, Bikes, and Monstrous Creatures are required to maintain 2" coherency. Vehicles have 4" coherency. Since the ADL is not Infantry/Bike/Monstrous Creature we cannot use the 2" restriction. Since it is not a vehicle we cannot use the 4" restriction.
Don't we have tons of rulings where they tell us to treat buildings/fortifications as vehicles? In that case I'd go with the 4".
Kangodo wrote: That's another problem One shouldn't come here because his houserules broke a rule and he is wondering how to fix it.
In cases like that we can only tell him how we would play it, since the BRB doesn't cover stuff like "what to do if I changed the rules and now I am in trouble"
The game isn't broken at all. There's nothing wrong with having a gun emplacement on top of a ruin. In fact it's a very fluffy piece of narrative terrain, I think.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: Don't we have tons of rulings where they tell us to treat buildings/fortifications as vehicles? In that case I'd go with the 4".
1) Buildings, not vehicles. Aegis lines and gun emplacements are battlefield debris, which is just terrain.
2) You treat buildings as vehicles for some purposes, not all purposes. There is no rule that gives any kind of coherency requirement to buildings.
Peregrine wrote: The game isn't broken at all. There's nothing wrong with having a gun emplacement on top of a ruin. In fact it's a very fluffy piece of narrative terrain, I think.
The game is broken because he placed terrain before fortifications, which he isn't allowed to do.
1) Buildings, not vehicles. Aegis lines and gun emplacements are battlefield debris, which is just terrain.
2) You treat buildings as vehicles for some purposes, not all purposes. There is no rule that gives any kind of coherency requirement to buildings.
We left the RAW-part behind us when we started to ignore the BRB All that is left is: How would you play it?
And I am preferring the 4"-thing.
Kangodo wrote: The game is broken because he placed terrain before fortifications, which he isn't allowed to do.
And we've already established that placing terrain first is a house rule (and a popular one). Once you have accepted the existence of this house rule having a gun emplacement on top of a ruin does not cause any additional problems. In fact it obviously can't cause any problems because it's perfectly legal for me to create a terrain piece that is a ruin with a gun emplacement built into the top level (a nice fluffy idea) and the game will play just fine. So the fact that the exact same gun was placed there as a fortification instead of as part of the terrain piece can't possibly break the game.
Also, you might want to reconsider your idea of "broken". A "broken" game is not one that is being played under a house rule, it's one where things just don't function at all. For example, if someone found a flaw in the rules that prevented either player from deploying their army the game would obviously be broken, and the flaw would have to be ignored or house-ruled away. Merely having a gun emplacement on top of a ruin does not even come close to that level of non-functioning.
We left the RAW-part behind us when we started to ignore the BRB
Not true at all. Having a house rule about one aspect of the game does not require that you ignore RAW everywhere else. For example, if I have a house rule that Tyranids can ally with other Tyranids I am not suddenly obligated to leave RAW behind and consider an argument that lascannons are really supposed to be STR 10.
All that is left is: How would you play it?
And I am preferring the 4"-thing.
Which is your personal house rule and not in any way supported by the rules. Please do not ever attempt to justify it as anything more than your personal opinion, or cite any kind of rule in support of it as if you're just picking a legitimate interpretation to play by.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Peregrine - yet you are basing "perfectly fine" off an already given houserule, creating a situation that could not occur otherwise.
What exactly is your point?
IF you are playing by the house rule it is fine. Having the possibility of gun emplacements on terrain is just a natural consequence of placing terrain before fortifications. If you don't like it then you just need to add an additional house rule that prevents fortifications from being placed within X" of terrain.
However, I really don't see what your objection is. If we're talking about a situation where a house rule is in effect how exactly is it relevant to complain that we're talking about a house rule?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Generally you houserule something to create as little a variance from the rules as needed
Exactly.
The house rule creates as little variance as possible, therefore the only change is the order in which things are placed. Otherwise the rules remain exactly the same, and therefore there is no rule stating that an otherwise-legal location for a gun emplacement suddenly becomes illegal because it's on top of a ruin.
If you want to include an additional house rule that limits how close to a piece of terrain you can place your fortifications then you need MORE variance from the rules.
Or the exact opposite; there is no way normally for an ADL to end up in a ruin, so you dont allow this. You have thus created a houserule that results in something as close to the original rules as possible
nosferatu1001 wrote: Or the exact opposite; there is no way normally for an ADL to end up in a ruin, so you dont allow this. You have thus created a houserule that results in something as close to the original rules as possible
You're confused here.
A house rule only does exactly what it states. It modifies exactly those rules which it says it modifies, and no others. Other than those changes, you play the game by the standard rules. You do NOT randomly also invent a bunch of other rule changes to make the game "as close as possible" to how it used to play, for your personal definition of "close". If a rule now allows you to do X, you don't get to arbitrarily declare that no you can't do X because you don't think it's close enough to the original game. You accept that your house rule has changed X and deal with it. So:
If your house rule consists of "place terrain before fortifications" then that is the ONLY change. You have not added any additional rules restricting where fortifications can be placed, so you can place the gun on top of a ruin.
If you want to ban putting guns on top of ruins then you need to make an ADDITIONAL house rule that says "no guns on top of ruins" and be clear about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: -----------------------------------------------------
Here is an analogy for you.
I'm tired of having my lasgun shots magically disappear at 24", so I make a house rule that says that lasguns now have 30" range. Silly, perhaps, but changing a weapon profile doesn't break the game and we can use that house rule just fine.
I do NOT get to then declare, without making an additional house rule, that now my autocannons have 60" range because they used to have double the range of a lasgun and we need to make the game be as close to it was before the house rule as possible.
Im laughing at this Thread here, so much bickering its Hilarious...
In my FLGS everyone plays alongside the rule that the Gun emplacement has to touch the ADL, this makes perfect sense to us all and is how everyone in out tournaments have played it.
For those who seem to put a Firm stand in their argument as RAW:
Warhammer 40k is not that type of game (warmachine is ), As we have here the Rules for The ADL and "clustering" are not clear now this is where GW wants us to put common sense for clustering as in put close to each other, now in My FLGS to avoid arguments we put it in base to base contact with the Agis, now however if people are still complaining about this rule I would say Place it within unit coherency like troops choices would, why? because it has a model Statline not a Vehicle statline it has wounds not AV so I would say place it within 2" of the terrain, but thats only if people started to argue...
But lets have a think about it, imagine the cheese you would pull of with the gun being placed anywhere on the board you could have it in the corner of the board with an IC or a lone model and just skyfire any flyers on the board, This is why you put it within touching base/unit coherency so that you cant pull off WAAC/Cheesy as hell moves like that...
Aside from that I think people really need to chill about this and stop bending each others words, so here is some Classical music to help you all calm down ...
happygolucky wrote: In my FLGS everyone plays alongside the rule that the Gun emplacement has to touch the ADL, this makes perfect sense to us all and is how everyone in out tournaments have played it.
So you impose a house rule that even GW doesn't follow? Look at the picture in the book, even ignoring the rule text the gun emplacement is clearly not touching any of the wall sections.
As we have here the Rules for The ADL and "clustering" are not clear
No, the rules are perfectly clear. Some people don't like what they say, but that's entirely different from the rules being unclear.
I would say Place it within unit coherency like troops choices would, why? because it has a model Statline not a Vehicle statline it has wounds not AV so I would say place it within 2" of the terrain, but thats only if people started to argue...
Why do we need to use this house rule instead of using the actual rules of the game?
But lets have a think about it, imagine the cheese you would pull of with the gun being placed anywhere on the board you could have it in the corner of the board with an IC or a lone model and just skyfire any flyers on the board,
So, let me get this straight:
Gun emplacement terrain feature with defense lines, placed as a "cluster" of battlefield debris during the "alternating terrain placement" method for setting up the table = fine.
Gun emplacement in the exact same spot, but placed during the fortification step as part of an aegis line = cheese.
Not that it's really cheese anyway, since the gun can't block LOS entirely, and even if it did it would also block the firing model's LOS to the flyer and make it impossible to shoot. If you can't handle a quad gun in the corner then it's your fault as a player, not the game's fault.
This is why you put it within touching base/unit coherency so that you cant pull off WAAC/Cheesy as hell moves like that...
You can place the gun there anyway. Even if we follow your silly house rule about being in contact with the aegis line you can STILL put a gun in the corner, you just have to put your aegis line in that corner as well. So even if it is "cheese" your house rule still allows the exact same "cheese".
Peregrin, scince you are only allowed by the rules to place 1 fortification how do you tally the fact that you have placed 2? The ADL & QG?
You haven't. You've placed a single fortification that consists of several independent pieces of plastic.
Can you please point out where it tells us in any rule book or errata that the Quad gun is a fortification as opposed to an Option (an additional weapon, wargear or upgrade, as per the definition in the rules) that is taken as part of a purchased fortification, outside of simply re-stating your interpretation?
Additionally;
Aegis Defense Line : Terrain Type:Battlefield Debris (Defence lines). Can battlefield debris be placed on top of other terrain? (Using your assumption that the gun is a "fortification" (which is not mentioned in any rules as such) as it is purchased with the ADL, it must therefore also be classed as Terrain Type:Battlefield Debris (Defence lines))
So you impose a house rule that even GW doesn't follow? Look at the picture in the book, even ignoring the rule text the gun emplacement is clearly not touching any of the wall sections.
.
Untrue, untrue, untrue. Draw a line along the base of the ADL and along the back side of the quad gun and you will find that it is touching.
This has been brought up before and shown that the "clearly not touching" is blatantly untrue.
Rorschach9 wrote: Can you please point out where it tells us in any rule book or errata that the Quad gun is a fortification as opposed to an Option (an additional weapon, wargear or upgrade, as per the definition in the rules) that is taken as part of a purchased fortification, outside of simply re-stating your interpretation?
I won't point it out, because I didn't say that the gun itself is a fortification. It is part of a fortification, as you can clearly see from the model, the picture in the book, and the rules for how you obtain one. You're asking a question which makes about as much sense as demanding proof that a tactical squad sergeant is a troops model.
Aegis Defense Line : Terrain Type:Battlefield Debris (Defence lines). Can battlefield debris be placed on top of other terrain? (Using your assumption that the gun is a "fortification" (which is not mentioned in any rules as such) as it is purchased with the ADL, it must therefore also be classed as Terrain Type:Battlefield Debris (Defence lines))
Yes it can be placed on top of other terrain. The rules define where you can place a fortification, and nowhere does it say anything about not being able to place them on top of any terrain that exists in the area where they can be placed. Therefore terrain is treated no differently than any other space in the table half.
So you can place terrain ON TOP OF other terrain??
Yes, because the rules define where you can place things and do not say "unless it's on top of other terrain".
Rorschach9 wrote: Untrue, untrue, untrue. Draw a line along the base of the ADL and along the back side of the quad gun and you will find that it is touching.
This has been brought up before and shown that the "clearly not touching" is blatantly untrue.
Wrong. I already posted the picture in the other similar thread. Note that the line along the back edge of the quad gun and the line along the inner edge of the wall do NOT touch at any point. It is very close to the back wall, but clearly NOT touching it.
Even GW referred the gun emplacement as being attached to the ADL in the FAQ. I left the thread because at this point, it sounds like one guy who has been placing his cannon anywhere he wants it doesn't like the idea that he may be taking advantage of a poorly-written rule and is vehemently defending it.
Rorschach9 wrote: Untrue, untrue, untrue. Draw a line along the base of the ADL and along the back side of the quad gun and you will find that it is touching.
This has been brought up before and shown that the "clearly not touching" is blatantly untrue.
Wrong. I already posted the picture in the other similar thread. Note that the line along the back edge of the quad gun and the line along the inner edge of the wall do NOT touch at any point. It is very close to the back wall, but clearly NOT touching it.
Hmm. Not according to my line drawn across the entire ADL and the back of the Quad gun. They are together.
And I'm not quite sure how you're finding the back right corner of the Quad Gun that is not even visible in order to draw a line. You can't see the front of the quad gun's base either to draw a line parallel. However, drawing a line across the length of the ADL's base shows it touches at the back left corner (if not for the jutting out section at that particular point)
And besides, you continue to make personal assumptions about other things to support your position anyway, as pointed out several times.
ADL in referenced pictures are in full circles so QG can be placed anywhere in that circle;
Faq mentioned is "Can you shoot a gun emplacement attached to an aegis defence line?" "yes - see page 105...."
GW not explicitly saying that it has to be attached but saying it can be attached to the gun line
Rorschach9 wrote: Hmm. Not according to my line drawn across the entire ADL and the back of the Quad gun.
Why are you drawing the line across the entire back wall, along sections which can't possibly be in contact with the gun?
The most likely explanation is that one of the sections on the right of the picture is at a slight angle, so extending a line along it hits the quad gun. If you draw the line along the piece of aegis line (a single piece of plastic) directly behind the gun, the only piece it could possibly touch, it doesn't intersect.
And I'm not quite sure how you're finding the back right corner of the Quad Gun that is not even visible in order to draw a line.
Easily. At the angle in the picture you can see the entire left edge of the gun, including where it ends in a 90* corner. You can't see the back edge itself, but you CAN see the point where it begins, draw a parallel line across the front edge (since the gun is a rectangle), and move it to start at that point. If you've ever done any drafting/CAD work it's pretty obvious what I'm doing.
I suppose I could increase the size to make it clearer, but quite honestly Pictures are not rules anyway. And besides, you continue to make personal assumptions about other things to support your position anyway, as pointed out several times.
You're right. Pictures aren't rules. But when RAW there is no "must touch" rule and you're trying to argue that RAIGW meant for them to touch it's pretty compelling evidence that GWdidn't intend for them to touch based on the rulebook picture of them not touching.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
puma713 wrote: In this picture, it looks like it could easily be touching the indention of the wall with the back of the gun.
Only because the line is drawn incorrectly across the entire back wall instead of only the relevant wall segment. If you look at the picture I posted earlier, using only the relevant wall section, it clearly doesn't touch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
puma713 wrote: Even GW referred the gun emplacement as being attached to the ADL in the FAQ. I left the thread because at this point, it sounds like one guy who has been placing his cannon anywhere he wants it doesn't like the idea that he may be taking advantage of a poorly-written rule and is vehemently defending it.
GW's FAQ refers to the wall sections, not the gun. It says nothing at all about the gun.
GW not explicitly saying that it has to be attached but saying it can be attached to the gun line
True, but why even mention it being attached at all? If it does not have to be attached, just ask, "Can you fire at the gun emplacement of an ADL?"
The point is, if you can attach it to the ADL, then precedent is set for how gun emplacements are supposed to be fielded. There is no "attach it or not". GW posing the question about shooting at an attached gun emplacement indicates that the gun emplacements are supposed to be attached.
Edit: In fact, the language they use doesn't even suggest it could be anything but attached. The FAQ question doesn't say, "a gun emplacement that is attached. . " or "a gun emplacement that could be attached. . "
It simply says: "a gun emplacement attached to an. . ."
To be fair I personaly do not think the image means anything in regards to this rules discussion other than its just shows the contets of the ADL mainly because it dose not say anywhere in the rules "refer to the Image"...
Rorschach9 wrote: Hmm. Not according to my line drawn across the entire ADL and the back of the Quad gun.
Why are you drawing the line across the entire back wall, along sections which can't possibly be in contact with the gun?
The most likely explanation is that one of the sections on the right of the picture is at a slight angle, so extending a line along it hits the quad gun. If you draw the line along the piece of aegis line (a single piece of plastic) directly behind the gun, the only piece it could possibly touch, it doesn't intersect.
Because the back is clearly (as the straight line shows) in a STRAIGHT LINE. Not at any slight angle. The STRAIGHT LINE shows they are in a straight line.
And I'm not quite sure how you're finding the back right corner of the Quad Gun that is not even visible in order to draw a line.
Easily. At the angle in the picture you can see the entire left edge of the gun, including where it ends in a 90* corner. You can't see the back edge itself, but you CAN see the point where it begins, draw a parallel line across the front edge (since the gun is a rectangle), and move it to start at that point. If you've ever done any drafting/CAD work it's pretty obvious what I'm doing.
I suppose I could increase the size to make it clearer, but quite honestly Pictures are not rules anyway. And besides, you continue to make personal assumptions about other things to support your position anyway, as pointed out several times.
You're right. Pictures aren't rules. But when RAW there is no "must touch" rule and you're trying to argue that RAIGW meant for them to touch it's pretty compelling evidence that GWdidn't intend for them to touch based on the rulebook picture of them not touching.
I'm not arguing RAI that they must touch. I'm trying to find where RAW they can be placed outside of the fortification piece it was purchased as an option for. I'm not even going to bother with the picture at this point .. I've shown it touches using only visible pieces of the ADL and Quad Gun. You refute that based on assumptions as to where portions of the piece are that you cannot even see.
puma713 wrote: In this picture, it looks like it could easily be touching the indention of the wall with the back of the gun.
Only because the line is drawn incorrectly across the entire back wall instead of only the relevant wall segment. If you look at the picture I posted earlier, using only the relevant wall section, it clearly doesn't touch.
Dude, those are the exact same picture. Forget the lines. Look at the back of the gun and the wall indention in the back of the ADL. Those could easily be touching.
puma713 wrote: Even GW referred the gun emplacement as being attached to the ADL in the FAQ. I left the thread because at this point, it sounds like one guy who has been placing his cannon anywhere he wants it doesn't like the idea that he may be taking advantage of a poorly-written rule and is vehemently defending it.
GW's FAQ refers to the wall sections, not the gun. It says nothing at all about the gun.
happygolucky wrote: To be fair I personaly do not think the image means anything in regards to this rules discussion other than its just shows the contets of the ADL mainly because it dose not say anywhere in the rules "refer to the Image"...
Just my opinion here...
You are absolutely correct. Photos are taken by Photographers, not the designers of the games. They are (industry standard) taken to show the product. There are far too many examples that show photos of game products set up in a way that it is not to be used in game because the photographer thought it would look better that way. Unless you are specifically refered to a photograph as an example of how a rule is meant to be used, you cannot assume the photograph has any bearing at all on the rules.
I'm not arguing RAI that they must touch. I'm trying to find where RAW they can be placed outside of the fortification piece it was purchased as an option for.
Exactly. This is the point everyone keeps missing. When I flip to a Baal predator. . it says "May take the following:" That includes a side sponson. How do I know where to put the side sponson?
I haven't altered the model of the Baal - side sponsons are not included on the model. So, if I haven't altered the model, and I purchased something that it said I may purchase, how do I know where it goes?
I use common sense and I put the side sponsons on the model that it was purchased for: the baal predator. I do not try to say that I can place the side sponsons anywhere I want, simply because they were purchased as an option.
So my question here is why is everyone using paint to paint lines on the picture of the ADL when quite clearly this particular picture has nothing to do with the rules just shows the contents of what you get when you buy an ADL?
Rorschach9 wrote: Because the back is clearly (as the straight line shows) in a STRAIGHT LINE. Not at any slight angle. The STRAIGHT LINE shows they are in a straight line.
Not necessarily. The back wall is two pieces of plastic, that aren't necessarily in perfect parallel alignment. You're drawing the line in the wrong place and trying to follow a part that isn't relevant to the discussion.
I'm not arguing RAI that they must touch. I'm trying to find where RAW they can be placed outside of the fortification piece it was purchased as an option for.
Define "outside the fortification". Under exactly which conditions is a gun "outside" the fortification and "inside" the fortification.
When answering this question please keep in mind the fact that the aegis line does not have to form a closed shape.
You refute that based on assumptions as to where portions of the piece are that you cannot even see.
Because I understand how geometry works. The two pieces are not touching.
puma713 wrote: Dude, those are the exact same picture. Forget the lines. Look at the back of the gun and the wall indention in the back of the ADL. Those could easily be touching.
No they can't. I already posted the picture clearly demonstrating that they do NOT touch. There is no guessing involved here.
"Attached", as in "purchased as part of the same fortification". If it meant to refer to a gun touching an aegis line it would say "in contact with".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
happygolucky wrote: So my question here is why is everyone using paint to paint lines on the picture of the ADL when quite clearly this particular picture has nothing to do with the rules just shows the contents of what you get when you buy an ADL?
Because some people are trying to argue that GWintended it to have to be placed touching the wall, even if RAW they left a loophole. The picture demonstrates that, since GW set it up with the gun NOT touching the wall, this was not an intended requirement.
"Attached", as in "purchased as part of the same fortification". If it meant to refer to a gun touching an aegis line it would say "in contact with".
Wow, now you're really reaching. So why even mention an ADL at all? Just ask, "May I fire at a gun emplacement?"
If it has nothing to do with being attached to the ADL, then the ADL is superfluous to the question and has no bearing. Unless that's not what they meant at all.
puma713 wrote: Wow, now you're really reaching. So why even mention an ADL at all? Just ask, "May I fire at a gun emplacement?"
Because you may NOT fire at a gun emplacement which is placed as an item of battlefield debris in the terrain placement step (IOW, a "neutral" gun emplacement). You can only shoot at gun emplacements that are chosen as part of a player's fortifications.
puma713 wrote: Wow, now you're really reaching. So why even mention an ADL at all? Just ask, "May I fire at a gun emplacement?"
Because you may NOT fire at a gun emplacement which is placed as an item of battlefield debris in the terrain placement step (IOW, a "neutral" gun emplacement). You can only shoot at gun emplacements that are chosen as part of a player's fortifications.
lol Okay.
Also, notice they ask the exact same question below about shooting at a gun emplacement on the roof of a bastion. You'd think that the first answer would've covered both, if they were simply talking about something that is purchased as an option.
But you keep clawing and scratching at the last vestiges of your rule-bending. Just glad no-one around here plays this way.
Edit: Let me rephrase. Just glad no one around here tries to play this way.
Rorschach9 wrote: Because the back is clearly (as the straight line shows) in a STRAIGHT LINE. Not at any slight angle. The STRAIGHT LINE shows they are in a straight line.
Not necessarily. The back wall is two pieces of plastic, that aren't necessarily in perfect parallel alignment. You're drawing the line in the wrong place and trying to follow a part that isn't relevant to the discussion.
Yet the perfectly straight line drawn across the entire back of both segments show they are in parallel alignment. No, that part is not relevant however it helps to draw the line straight over a greater distance (pick point A - pick point B .. computer draws a straight line. This straight line shows they are in alignment. This straight line also touches the back corner of the Quadgun. Are you going to now say that perhaps the quadgun is on a slight angle so as not to touch any portion of the line?)
I'm not arguing RAI that they must touch. I'm trying to find where RAW they can be placed outside of the fortification piece it was purchased as an option for.
Define "outside the fortification". Under exactly which conditions is a gun "outside" the fortification and "inside" the fortification.
When answering this question please keep in mind the fact that the aegis line does not have to form a closed shape.
As it is purchased as an optional piece of wargear for the ADL, as with all other pieces of wargear, it is an integral part of the piece it is purchased for. This would mean it must touch any one portion of the fortification it is purchased for. The Quadgun itself is not a "fortification" as you have stated previously. It is an additional weapon purchased as an upgrade to a fortification. Please show, in rules, where this is to be placed other than touching the item it was purchased as an option for? If it can be placed separate from the ADL then that means other Optional wargear may be placed separate from its original piece.
You refute that based on assumptions as to where portions of the piece are that you cannot even see.
Because I understand how geometry works. The two pieces are not touching.
yet I have shown they are, using my equal understanding of geometry and spatial recognition. However, our credentials are irrelevant.
puma713 wrote: Also, notice they ask the exact same question below about shooting at a gun emplacement on the roof of a bastion.
Because they're two different situations.
The aegis FAQ clarifies that you can shoot at the gun, even though it's technically a terrain piece and not a unit/building.
The bastion FAQ clarifies that you at shoot the gun independently of the bastion. That is, you don't treat it like the heavy bolters (which are part of the bastion and can't be shot at separately), it's a separate target just like a unit standing on the roof.
The aegis FAQ alone does not cover the bastion situation, so you have to make a second FAQ.
But you keep clawing and scratching at the last vestiges of your rule-bending. Just glad no-one around here plays this way.
Yeah, how silly of me to think that we should play according to the rules of the game. If you don't like what the rules say, just admit it and get everyone to agree on a house rule that the gun has to be within X" of a wall segment. I have no problem with people who think that it's a reasonable house rule to make, what I object to is people pretending that the rules say that you have to play it that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rorschach9 wrote: No, that part is not relevant however it helps to draw the line straight over a greater distance (pick point A - pick point B .. computer draws a straight line.
No, you have that backwards. Drawing the line over a greater distance introduces more potential for error, since you can't guarantee that points on the other piece of plastic are perfectly aligned. The correct way to do it is to use only the short section of "inner" wall directly to the right of the gun. It's more than long enough to give you a straight line, and since the small part of that "inner" bit behind the gun is the only part it could possibly touch you remove potential error sources by only using the relevant line on the piece.
Are you going to now say that perhaps the quadgun is on a slight angle so as not to touch any portion of the line?)
No, I'm saying that you drew the line wrong. A correctly drawn line shows them clearly not in contact.
This would mean it must touch any one portion of the fortification it is purchased for.
You're assuming that. The rules do not require it, and the picture in the rulebook clearly shows it NOT touching.
Please show, in rules, where this is to be placed other than touching the item it was purchased as an option for?
You have that backwards. It's a separate model, and there is no requirement that it be touching. In the absence of such a requirement you go by the standard rules for where a fortification can be.
If this was so obvious than GW wouldn't have to make a specific rule that the wall sections have to touch, since it would be impossible to do it any othe way. The existence of this special rule demonstrates that the default is not touching, and you need a special rule if you want them to be touching.
yet I have shown they are, using my equal understanding of geometry and spatial recognition. However, our credentials are irrelevant.
You're doing it wrong. I've already explained several times why.
The "battlefield terrain: Emplaced Weapons"-section describes the Icarus cannon as an Emplaced Weapon.
It also says that Emplaced Weapons are built-in weapons.
That makes a precedent for the Quadgun to be a built-in weapon, which means it should be placed against the ADL.
Kangodo wrote: The "battlefield terrain: Emplaced Weapons"-section describes the Icarus cannon as an Emplaced Weapon.
It also says that Emplaced Weapons are built-in weapons.
That makes a precedent for the Quadgun to be a built-in weapon, which means it should be placed against the ADL.
"Built-in" weapons only apply to buildings. An aegis line is not a building. And the picture clearly shows it not in contact with any wall segments.
Also, gun emplacements and emplaced weapons are NOT the same thing.
Peregrine wrote: "Built-in" weapons only apply to buildings. An aegis line is not a building. And the picture clearly shows it not in contact with any wall segments. Also, gun emplacements and emplaced weapons are NOT the same thing.
But the picture also doesn't show the Quadgun being 24" from the ADL either. I am still going with what I said before: If someone wants to put his QG 24" away from the ADL, he has to show me a rule that allows him to do so.
Kangodo wrote: But the picture also doesn't show the Quadgun being 24" from the ADL either.
No, but that wasn't the claim. The argument was that GWintended for it to be in contact, even if RAW doesn't require it, and the picture disputes that claim.
I am still going with what I said before: If someone wants to put his QG 24" away from the ADL, he has to show me a rule that allows him to do so.
Simple: the rule that tells you where you can place a fortification (your half of the table, more than 3" from other fortifications). YOU are required to show a rule that says that there is an additional requirement that it has to be within a certain distance.
Also, please tell me EXACTLY how far away it can be, and cite a rule when you do so.
puma713 wrote: Wow, now you're really reaching. So why even mention an ADL at all? Just ask, "May I fire at a gun emplacement?"
Because you may NOT fire at a gun emplacement which is placed as an item of battlefield debris in the terrain placement step (IOW, a "neutral" gun emplacement). You can only shoot at gun emplacements that are chosen as part of a player's fortifications.
Please read the rules for gun emplacements. Of course you can fire at it. Stop making false statements and misrepresenting the rules, please.
This would mean it must touch any one portion of the fortification it is purchased for.
You're assuming that. The rules do not require it, and the picture in the rulebook clearly shows it NOT touching.
While it may be your opinion, this is a false statement. The picture does NOT clearly show any such thing. Looking at the picture in front of me, I think, given the shape of the wall sections, that it is most likely touching the wall section immediately behind it, which curves back right around the mid-point of the Quad Gun's base. Based on the angle it's impossible to say for CERTAIN that it's touching, but it's quite possible, and indeed likely.
In fact, just for the sake of argument, I just broke out my Aegis on the carpet here, and laid it out in the manner shown in the rulebook. I laid it out and checked both the angle of the photograph and from above, and indeed it seems very likely to me that the Quad gun's base/platform is indeed touching the wall section directly behind it.
Now, given that we cannot tell for sure just by looking at the picture, the quote from the FAQ which Puma presented becomes important, because it gives us more information. The FAQ uses the word "attached", which indicates that it most likely IS and must be in contact with the wall sections.
The preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate that any upgrades to the Aegis are placed in contact with the Aegis.
Mannahnin wrote: Please read the rules for gun emplacements. Of course you can fire at it. Stop making false statements and misrepresenting the rules, please.
Normally. Anyway, that's not really a point in dispute here, all I was saying is that the FAQ isn't about establishing that the gun is touching the aegis line, it's about establishing that yes, you may shoot at it (even if there are other gun emplacements that you can not shoot at).
(And yes, I admit I got that wrong. I assumed that GW wouldn't have to make an FAQ saying "yes you can shoot it" for an object whose rules clearly say "you can shoot it", so there must be something preventing you from shooting non-aegis guns. Apparently I overestimate the literacy of the average GW customer.)
The picture does NOT clearly show any such thing.
Yes it does. Look at the red lines in this picture. I've extended the line on the "inner" part of the wall section behind the gun (the only piece of the wall that could possibly touch it) to show where it is behind the gun, and drawn the back edge of the gun itself. The two lines clearly do not touch.
The FAQ uses the word "attached", which indicates that it most likely IS and must be in contact with the wall sections.
Do you have any other instances of GW using "attached" to mean "touching" instead of "in contact", "in base to base contact", etc, like they normally use for describing a situation with two models touching each other? Or are you just assuming that "attached" is a relationship between the models on the table instead of describing that the gun was purchased with a given aegis line?
@Mannahnin: The intro-page for "Battlefield Terrain" has a picture where it clearly doesn't touch the walls. But I still say that pictures aren't rules, so that doesn't really matter
Peregrine wrote: No, but that wasn't the claim. The argument was that GWintended for it to be in contact, even if RAW doesn't require it, and the picture disputes that claim.
That issue is simple: Pictures don't show intent and shouldn't be used.
Simple: the rule that tells you where you can place a fortification (your half of the table, more than 3" from other fortifications).
But the Quadgun is not a fortification, it's a gun-emplacement that is an upgrade to the ADL. You could argue that the Quadgun is battlefield debris, but that means that your opponent could place it in his table-halve.
YOU are required to show a rule that says that there is an additional requirement that it has to be within a certain distance.
No, not really! You bring the weapon and you want to place it anywhere on your halve. Warhammer is a permissive game, meaning that the opponent can allow anything until he questions something. And if your opponent questions something, you have to proof that it's legal.
Also, please tell me EXACTLY how far away it can be, and cite a rule when you do so.
I do not have to do this. I will allow any placing that is within 4", if you go over it than you have to proof that it's legal.
Kangodo wrote: That issue is simple: Pictures don't show intent and shouldn't be used.
Again, context. The picture is brought up as "proof" that it has to be in contact. I don't need the picture to prove my case (since I have RAW), I'm just drawing the lines correctly to establish that the picture doesn't support the "in contact" argument either.
But the Quadgun is not a fortification, it's a gun-emplacement that is an upgrade to the ADL.
It is part of a fortification. As long as the following conditions are met, your placement of the aegis line is legal:
1) The entire fortification is within your half of the table, and more than 3" from any other fortification.
2) All of the wall segments form a single unbroken chain.
The gun is still part of the same fortification even if it is located 24" away from the closest wall, since there is no requirement that it be any closer.
You bring the weapon and you want to place it anywhere on your halve.
Exactly, according to the clearly stated rules for where fortifications can be placed.
And if your opponent questions something, you have to proof that it's legal.
I did. I have cited the rules for placing fortifications, many times.
If you want to argue that the gun follows a non-standard rule and has additional restrictions then YOU have to provide that additional rule.
I will allow any placing that is within 4", if you go over it than you have to proof that it's legal.
Please cite the rule that says that there is a 4" limit.
Also, all of your weapons have 0" range and your models all have a specific rule that says they only role D3" for charge distance. Until you prove that this isn't the case (and merely not finding the rule isn't good enough, I demand to see a rule that says "this model does not have 0" range") you may not shoot and you are probably not going to assault. See how absurd this is?
Yes it does. Look at the red lines in this picture. I've extended the line on the "inner" part of the wall section behind the gun (the only piece of the wall that could possibly touch it) to show where it is behind the gun, and drawn the back edge of the gun itself. The two lines clearly do not touch.
Did you mean to attach a different image? I'm not seeing any line showing a space between the back of the quad gun's base and the wall section immediately behind it.
The FAQ uses the word "attached", which indicates that it most likely IS and must be in contact with the wall sections.
]Do you have any other instances of GW using "attached" to mean "touching" instead of "in contact", "in base to base contact", etc, like they normally use for describing a situation with two models touching each other? Or are you just assuming that "attached" is a relationship between the models on the table instead of describing that the gun was purchased with a given aegis line?
I'm working with the common meaning for "attached", as in "connected to". I did check through the space marine codex for likely candidates (like combi-weapons, or the storm bolter on a dreadnought CCW), but none of them use the word "attached'. AFAICT "attached" doesn't have a 40k-specific meaning, so absent that, we are expected to use the common meaning. Are you aware of any other common sense in which "attached", in relation to objects, means something other than "physically connected to"?
Mannahnin wrote: Did you mean to attach a different image? I'm not seeing any line showing a space between the back of the quad gun's base and the wall section immediately behind it.
Do you see the two parallel red lines?
Peregrine wrote: I'm working with the common meaning for "attached", as in "connected to".
The common meaning also covers "bought together with". And since nothing in the FAQ is about whether or not the gun is touching a wall or not the most reasonable way to interpret "attached" is the way that has meaning in the context of the FAQ: that it refers to the "part of the same fortification" aspect of the gun, not its location on the table.
Are you aware of any other common sense in which "attached", in relation to objects, means something other than "physically connected to"?
Connected to rules-wise. For example, a unit could be described as having an attached independent character, which establishes a rules relationship between the two even though they are not in physical contact (they are required to be within 2", but that's because coherency is an effect of being attached).
Kangodo wrote: @Mannahnin: The intro-page for "Battlefield Terrain" has a picture where it clearly doesn't touch the walls.
But I still say that pictures aren't rules, so that doesn't really matter
Pictures accompanying rules usually are part of the rules. Nothing in that picture or its explanatory text indicates that the defensive line or gun emplacment behind it are an Aegis Fortification with attached weapon upgrade, though. In fact, the text indicates the opposite, that the defensive line in question is neutral terrain, and that the players have agreed that whoever controls the gun can shoot the gun. Which is true of all gun emplacements, of course, but the text still seems to indicate pretty clearly that none of the two defensive lines or two bastions on the SM player's side of the table are actually purchased Fortifications.
Peregrine wrote: It is part of a fortification. As long as the following conditions are met, your placement of the aegis line is legal: 1) The entire fortification is within your half of the table, and more than 3" from any other fortification. 2) All of the wall segments form a single unbroken chain. The gun is still part of the same fortification even if it is located 24" away from the closest wall, since there is no requirement that it be any closer.
So your argument comes down to: "The rules do not say I can't do it!", which is not how Warhammer-rules work.
Please cite the rule that says that there is a 4" limit.
No. I will allow you to place it within 4" without demanding that you pick up the BRB. If you want to place if any further, I will ask you to get your BRB out and show me that you are allowed to do so.
It's very simple: 1. You want to do X. 2. I do not believe you can do that. 3. You take the codex/BRB and show me that you can do X. 4. We proceed with the game.
Also, all of your weapons have 0" range and your models all have a specific rule that says they only role D3" for charge distance. Until you prove that this isn't the case (and merely not finding the rule isn't good enough, I demand to see a rule that says "this model does not have 0" range") you may not shoot and you are probably not going to assault. See how absurd this is?
Why is that absurd? It takes me 2 seconds to point out my Boltgun has a 24" range. It takes me 10 seconds to find the rule that models charge 2D6".
Kangodo wrote: So your argument comes down to: "The rules do not say I can't do it!", which is not how Warhammer-rules work.
No, it comes down to the fact that the rules give us a list of conditions which must be met, and "within X" of a wall" is not one of them. Just like I don't have to cite a specific rule saying I'm allowed to move my two Rhinos more than 6" apart, I just have to cite the standard movement rules and the absence of any rule modifying those standard rules to force a 6" limit.
No. I will allow you to place it within 4" without demanding that you pick up the BRB.
So your method is the same thing as "you lose the game, show me a rule that says you don't"? You're just going to invent an arbitrary limit and demand that I prove that I don't have to follow it?
If you want to place if any further, I will ask you to get your BRB out and show me that you are allowed to do so.
I've already cited the relevant rules. Many times.
It takes me 2 seconds to point out my Boltgun has a 24" range.
It takes me 10 seconds to find the rule that models charge 2D6".
No, I said your units all have a special rule that says "0" range" and "charges D3"". Prove that they don't. And your inability to find that rule doesn't mean anything, I want a specific citation of a rule that explicitly says "this unit does not have any rule that limits it to D3" charge range".
Mannahnin wrote: Did you mean to attach a different image? I'm not seeing any line showing a space between the back of the quad gun's base and the wall section immediately behind it.
Do you see the two parallel red lines?
On fourth review, I think I see what you're getting at. I still disagree that it's clear.
I'm working with the common meaning for "attached", as in "connected to".
The common meaning also covers "bought together with".
Seriously? If I tell you I bought a swiss army knife with attached bottle opener, you think that could mean I just bought them together? How about a tape measure with attached level?
The only common meaning for attached I'm aware of that doesn't involve physical connection is when talking about personnel; as in a staff officer attached to a unit. I've never heard any object referred to as "attached" to another object in any other sense than physically connected. Have you? Can you furnish any examples?
Peregrine wrote: And since nothing in the FAQ is about whether or not the gun is touching a wall or not the most reasonable way to interpret "attached" is the way that has meaning in the context of the FAQ: that it refers to the "part of the same fortification" aspect of the gun, not its location on the table.
I disagree. The FAQ is about whether a gun attached to a purchased Aegis can be targeted the same way as any other Gun Emplacement. And the word attached is illustrative of how GW expects you to use the model.
Are you aware of any other common sense in which "attached", in relation to objects, means something other than "physically connected to"?
Connected to rules-wise. For example, a unit could be described as having an attached independent character, which establishes a rules relationship between the two even though they are not in physical contact (they are required to be within 2", but that's because coherency is an effect of being attached).
First, the IC rules don't actually use the word "attached".
Second, even if we're talking descriptively, being in coherency is representative of the character being PART OF and JOINED TO the unit. You couldn''t say the character is part of the unit while he's halfway across the table from them. He has to be actually physically attached, in the same sense that every other member of the unit is attached, by physical coherency.
Right, Dedicated Transports, in reference to the Force Org, operate like a unit attached to another in a military TOE. Note that the main rules for Dedicated Transports don't use the word "attached" at all. The only use the word in relation to how they function on the Force Org chart.
Peregrine wrote: No, it comes down to the fact that the rules give us a list of conditions which must be met, and "within X" of a wall" is not one of them. Just like I don't have to cite a specific rule saying I'm allowed to move my two Rhinos more than 6" apart, I just have to cite the standard movement rules and the absence of any rule modifying those standard rules to force a 6" limit.
No, but if you want to move a Rhino 24" I want to see a rule on that.
So your method is the same thing as "you lose the game, show me a rule that says you don't"? You're just going to invent an arbitrary limit and demand that I prove that I don't have to follow it?
Uhm.. what? That is actually what you are doing!
When someone does something I disagree with, I ask them to show the ruling.
If someone tells me: "You lose!", I will ask him to show the ruling where it says that I lose.
If someone tells me: "I will place this QG 24" from my ADL, I will ask him to show the ruling that allows him to do so.
I've already cited the relevant rules. Many times.
But the QG isn't a separate fortification, so those rules you cited are irrelevant.
No, I said your units all have a special rule that says "0" range" and "charges D3"". Prove that they don't. And your inability to find that rule doesn't mean anything, I want a specific citation of a rule that explicitly says "this unit does not have any rule that limits it to D3" charge range".
What the feth are you saying?
If you are saying that there's a rule for something, you have to point it out.
If you claim that my units have a rule that they have zero range, than you have to show it.
And if you claim that there's a rule that allows a QG to be placed 24" from the ADL, you have to show it!
Not a single model in this game can do something on his own.
Everything they can do, they can do thanks to a rule.
If you claim they can do X, than you have to show the rule that says so.
So in short: You want to place them 24" apart? Show me the rule.
Sigh. This just keeps going around in circles, and after several pages we have yet to move beyond the "make up an arbitrary limit and demand proof that it doesn't exist" stage of the argument. So, I'm going to make this my last post on the subject.
The rules for fortifications are not complicated.
1) Rules must be clearly defined. You can not simply declare that it has to be "close", or "deployed with", or whatever. You need to give specific distances and/or directions when proposing a limit. Over and over again I have seen a claim about distance limits that is essentially "I know it when I see it", and lots of complaining about how it's "unfair" that you can put it "too far away". This is just not acceptable, you can't just declare that your personal definition of "close enough" is the important one and demand that everyone follow it. You need to define a specific distance and then provide citations from the rules that justify your number (but there are none).
2) There is no specific distance limit given. Anyone who claims that there is a maximum limit of 3" between the gun and the nearest wall, or 4", or whatever, is just making stuff up. Nowhere in the rules does GW assign any number, so any claim that a given number is an official rule is nonsense.
3) There is no "in contact" requirement. The only explicit statement of a requirement to place parts of an aegis line in contact with each other is the "single unbroken chain" requirement for the wall sections. This statement does not apply to the gun because it is not a wall section. Similarly, the FAQ about an "attached" gun is ambiguous since "attached" can have non-physical meanings (attached in the 'bought with in the FOC' sense, for example), and the FAQ is about something entirely unrelated to the physical location of the gun so it is not reasonable to expect absolute perfect care in word choice about the gun's relationship to the wall. At best it is inconclusive and is NOT a definite statement of an "in contact" requirement.
4) The picture in the rulebook does NOT show the gun in contact with the wall. I'll attach the picture again just to be clear, but if you extend the line of the only wall section capable of touching the gun and the back edge of the gun you will find that they do not intersect. This is basic geometry, and any claim otherwise is simply wrong. Now, this obviously doesn't prove that there is no "in contact" requirement since the photographer could have simply made a mistake, but it disproves any claim that the picture provides a requirement to have the gun touching the wall.
5) The "cluster of terrain" rule does not apply. Not only is "cluster" an undefined term (so anyone claiming a certain maximum distance between items in a cluster is just making stuff up) the rule is not relevant to fortifications. It is NOT an absolute "all battlefield debris must be placed in a cluster" requirement, it is simply an instruction to place a cluster of battlefield debris in a specific step of the terrain setup process. It does NOT rule out placing battlefield debris in other ways, such as placing a single crater underneath an exploded vehicle. And since fortifications are not placed during this specific step, the command to place a cluster does not apply.
6) Placing pieces of a fortification out of contact with each other is not illegal, nor does it make them no longer a single fortification. Unlike units, which have coherency requirements, terrain features have no similar requirement. A terrain feature is still a single terrain feature whether its component models are 1" apart or 100" apart. This is the reason that GW had to make a specific rule for the aegis line, the "single unbroken chain" rule, to require the wall sections to be placed together. Before this FAQ ruling it was perfectly legal to place several independent sections of wall, and the gun has received no similar FAQ/errata.
7) The rules for placing fortifications are simple. The rulebook gives three requirements for a legal placement of an aegis line:
a) The entire fortification must be within your half of the table.
b) The fortification may not be within 3" of another fortification.
c) All of the wall sections must form a single unbroken chain.
Any configuration of aegis line that meets these requirements is legal. There is no requirement governing where the gun can be placed in relation to the walls. There does not need to be a specific rule giving you permission to put it more than X" away, because there are already rules telling you where you can put it. The absence of such a rule does NOT mean that the rule is unclear, or ambiguous, in any way. It simply means that there are very few limits on where the gun can be placed.
8) The fact that you do not like a rule does not make it less clear. Is it "fluffy" that the gun can be placed anywhere? No. Would I like it if GW changed the rule and imposed a 3" limit? Yes. However, your failure to find a rule does not mean that the rules are unclear, just like my failure to find a way of giving my guardsmen STR 10 AP 1 lasguns does not mean that the rules are unclear. You can't just label a rule "unclear" and demand a compromise because you haven't been able to figure out a way to prevent people from doing something that you really don't want them to do. Sometimes you just don't get what you want.
In conclusion: RAW is perfectly clear, there is no requirement that the gun be "near" the wall. If you are unhappy with this rule, make a house rule imposing a limit. I will agree that such a house rule is a good thing, and be happy to play with it. But don't pretend that it's anything other than a house rule, because it isn't.
And trust me, this will continue to 'go in circles' as long as your argument is based on: "The rules don't say I cannot do it!"
1) You are 100% right! You need to define a specific distance and then provide citations from the rules that justify that number.
And since you cannot find such a specific distance, the limitation of the distance is based on what your opponent allows.
That is how rules in Warhammer work: When you want to do X and your opponent disagrees, you have to proof that the rules allow it.
2) I have never said such a thing, but I will repeat it in the hope that you will finally understand it.
a) The rules do not mention any distance.
b) Putting the QG even 1" from the ADL would be illegal because the rules do not support it.
c) I will let the opponent put it anywhere within 4"
d) If the opponent wants to put it any further, I will demand that he shows the rules that support it.
e) He can't find a rule that supports it, so he is limited by what I allow.
3) No, there is no "in contact" requirement.
But there is no rule that allows you to even place it an inch away from the ADL, so "in contact" is the only possibility.
4) I agree, but since when do pictures have any relevance to the ruling?
5) Again: I do not care.
What you are pointing out is that there isn't a rule that prevents you from placing it like you want, but that isn't enough! You have to find a rule that actually allows it, not point out that the rules do not disallow it.
6) "What I want to do is not illegal!" < I don't care, you have to proof that it's legal.
This is not like real life!
In real life you can do anything, unless the rules forbid it.
In Warhammer you can do nothing, unless the rules allow it.
7) Ahaa.. I will remember this.
If, how unlikely it may be, I ever play against you I will put all my Land Raider upgrades on my Baal Predator because there is no limitation to where my multi-melta can be placed.
8) The fact that I do not like a rule?
The problem is that there isn't a rule, which means that you aren't allowed to do it.
I could easily think of a dozen things I would like to do in games, but I cannot do it because there isn't a rule that permits it.
So to finish this: I find your line of reasoning very annoying.
You keep hammering on the part where it's not illegal to place it like that, but that is not how the rules work.
If you want to do something, you better proof that it is legal. The absence of a ruling that forbids it, is not the same as making it legal.
PS.
c) All of the wall sections must form a single unbroken chain.
FALSE The literal quote says: "Each section of the Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section."
Nowhere does it mention the "wall sections" and the QG is a section of the ADL.
Thanks to Peregrine for summarizing his arguments and stepping out. I'll be happy to do the same.
1. Rules should be clearly defined, but are sometimes a bit vague or implied in 40k. The Aegis rules give us no clear statement that any upgrades may be placed anywhere else on the table than as part of the Fortification. Every Fortification we have seen thus far is composed of a single terrain feature, which may include connected upgrades such as the gun or comm array on a Bastion or ADL. Absent a specific allowance to split up parts of the terrain feature, they should be kept together as one. The FAQ ruling on the wall sections having to be together is consistent with this.
2. Absent an explicit contrary instruction in the text, accompanying pictures and diagrams should be considered illustrative. The picture given of the ADL in its rules entry on page 114 appears to show the Quad Gun's base in contact with the wall section immediately behind it. Two different diagrams with projected lines have been drawn on Dakka, one of which seems to intersect the back of the base, but appears to be slightly askew. Peregrine's appears to possibly show a gap, but that's only if you fail to account for the additional width added onto the back of the base by the "bump out" of the control panel. Absent a specific and clear image showing a gap, there is no reason to believe that one exists. And thus the picture GW has supplied appears to show the upgrade also in contact with the wall sections.
3. The FAQ refers to the Gun Emplacement upgrade as being "attached" to the Aegis. The word attached has no 40k-specific special meaning, so we should use the common meaning. Which, in reference to objects particularly, is "physically connected to".
Mannahnin, what do you think about this line from the BRB:
"Each section of the Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section."
For a moment I thought I misunderstood what a "section" is, due to English not being my first language, but the definition of it is "one of several components".
That would make the Quadgun a section of an ADL and thus it should be in base contact with another section.
Kangodo wrote: Mannahnin, what do you think about this line from the BRB:
"Each section of the Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section."
For a moment I thought I misunderstood what a "section" is, due to English not being my first language, but the definition of it is "one of several components".
That would make the Quadgun a section of an ADL and thus it should be in base contact with another section.
That appears to be referring to the wall sections, as the preceding sentence says that the Aegis is comprised of "Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defense line sections".
Kangodo wrote: Mannahnin, what do you think about this line from the BRB:
"Each section of the Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section."
For a moment I thought I misunderstood what a "section" is, due to English not being my first language, but the definition of it is "one of several components". That would make the Quadgun a section of an ADL and thus it should be in base contact with another section.
That appears to be referring to the wall sections, as the preceding sentence says that the Aegis is comprised of "Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defense line sections".
That is for the normal ADL, if you also purchase a Gun Emplacement, the ADL would then be comprised of "Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defense line sections" and a Gun Emplacement.
Well, sure, but when we're talking about the "sections" of an ADL, in a sentence immediately following a listing of 4 long and 4 short sections, that's clearly in reference to the wall bits.
Mannahnin wrote: Well, sure, but when we're talking about the "sections" of an ADL, in a sentence immediately following a listing of 4 long and 4 short sections, that's clearly in reference to the wall bits.
Right.
They do not list anything else, because those options are not always included with the ADL.
If a Gun Emplacement is purchased then, logically, the ADL is comprised of Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defense line sections and a Gun Emplacement.
placing a piece of terrain directly in front of a ADL, blocking all LoS from any angle is perfectly legal RAW (assuming non-narative placement of terrain), however it's still a douche move that shows two things: 1) you would lower yourself to nefarious means to win (also known as WAAC players) instead of winning based on pure skill/luck of the dice. Intentionally starting the game with an unfair advantage. And 2) You don't respect the opponent your playing enough to come into a game at equal standing, Actively searching for loopholes in the RAW for advantages.
modeling a model for an in-game advantage (such as making a Tervigon only 2" tall somehow to better guarantee Cover Saves) and calling "rule of cool" as your loophole and placing a weapon upgrade for a piece of terrain anywhere else but with the piece of terrain, just for an advantage are all methods of WAAC players. And unless you are lucky and find a group completely made of WAAC players, you'll quickly find yourself out of people wanting to play a game with you.
Honestly, if someone was playing you and they found a loop-hole that legally allowed them to force you to play a game and you could only bring 500 points yourself while your opponent could bring 1500, would you play that person at all if ever again? Why not? Because a WAAC player is a legal cheater and a Douche. Heck the part of the community that falls under WAAC are the corrupt businessmen of the world, legally breaking the law for their own gain.
it is a dick move to put terrain infront of the ADL. Even though its legal (if further than 3inches) i still call people out on that whether im playing or not because of the reasons you gave.
For the most part if something sounds sketchy i'll just go with it unless its giving my opponent an insane advantage, such as one guy who ran Necrons with warriors and wraiths (so he didnt need cover for the most part) tried to say that only a bought barricade gives me a 4+ cover - which nothing in the rulebook says that i must buy it for the 4+, only the 2+ for going to ground. When your army depends on cover saves and someone tries to jip you out of it, you tend to get pissed.
Also, modifying a models profile in any way that can benefit you is illegal. If its smaller than normal, thats illegal, if its bigger than normal, perfectly fine. Same goes for giving fliers a wicked tall stand so they can look over the entire board is illegal because its letting them look over things they normally couldnt.
EDIT: Only modifying thats legal is moving guns around if the codex doesnt state where they are exactly. Like any ork vehicle for instance, it doesnt say where it is or if its a turret so we can put it wherever we want.
The listing of the ADL states that two sections must be in base contact. So whos to say that the line isnt spread out to either side of the table. I see the add on gun as a peice that doesnt have to touch but by the pictures should be placed near. Logic would dictate that the gun would be close to at lease a part of the wall if not incorporated within it.
As for putting the gun up in terrain. I think that is ridiculous. Guardsmen built it and they would not be able to put it high in some ruins or away from a point where they could easily reach. The whole point of this ADL is its fast to set up by normal guardsmen. Use your logic, not your cheese.
FullAuto wrote: The listing of the ADL states that two sections must be in base contact. So whos to say that the line isnt spread out to either side of the table.
Please 2 read FAQs. It has to be one contiguous line.
FullAuto wrote: The listing of the ADL states that two sections must be in base contact. So whos to say that the line isnt spread out to either side of the table.
From what I can gather most are ruling that the add-on has to be placed within 2-3 inches of a section of your Aegis.
Seems fair enough to me.
I don’t think there’s any real textual support for that, though. I think some folks are doing that out of a vague reasoning that it doesn’t specifically say where to put it, but it feels wrong to them to place it across the table.
I think there’s a slight ambiguity, but the best (and most conservative, so as to avoid taking undue advantage) way to play it is to make sure any added upgrades are placed in contact with the wall. I believe that’s what the evidence (including the FAQ, which uses the word “attached”) indicates anyway.
Firstborn wrote: RAW = it can be placed anywhere in your deployment zone. There is no rule it has to be connected or base to base with the Aegis.
There are many good situations where you would not want it connected.
There is also no rule that forbids me to bring a flamethrower to melt your army
RAW: It has to be placed attached to your ADL. There is no rule that allows it to be placed anywhere you like.
On the other hand, there is a rule that says each section of the ADL (which would include upgrades) must be placed in base-contact.
All those people thinking the rule says "wall-sections" got it wrong.
Also, modifying a models profile in any way that can benefit you is illegal. If its smaller than normal, thats illegal, if its bigger than normal, perfectly fine. Same goes for giving fliers a wicked tall stand so they can look over the entire board is illegal because its letting them look over things they normally couldnt.
EDIT: Only modifying thats legal is moving guns around if the codex doesnt state where they are exactly. Like any ork vehicle for instance, it doesnt say where it is or if its a turret so we can put it wherever we want.
Models profile gives it advantage and an disadvantage. High flying flyer can see everything but everybody also see the flyer.
Firstborn wrote: RAW = it can be placed anywhere in your deployment zone. There is no rule it has to be connected or base to base with the Aegis.
There are many good situations where you would not want it connected.
There is also no rule that forbids me to bring a flamethrower to melt your army
RAW: It has to be placed attached to your ADL. There is no rule that allows it to be placed anywhere you like.
On the other hand, there is a rule that says each section of the ADL (which would include upgrades) must be placed in base-contact.
All those people thinking the rule says "wall-sections" got it wrong.
" (which would include upgrades)" is your interpretation. A quadgun or comms relay is not a section.
RAW = it can be placed anywhere in your deployment zone. There is no rule or FAQ that says you can't do it, and from a tactical perspective it makes
sense. There is no logical reason as to why the gun or relay would need to be connected to the wall.
Same thing with the Bastion. You don't have to place the gun or relay on the top of it. They can go anywhere in your deployment zone.
Firstborn wrote: " (which would include upgrades)" is your interpretation. A quadgun or comms relay is not a section.
"A quadgun or comms relay is not a section." is your interpretation. According to the English language, a section is "a piece" or "One of several components".
When we acknowledge that section is synonymous for a piece, the rule would read: "All pieces must be in base contact with another piece."
RAW = it can be placed anywhere in your deployment zone. There is no rule or FAQ that says you can't do it, and from a tactical perspective it makes sense. There is no logical reason as to why the gun or relay would need to be connected to the wall.
No logical reason if you ignore the RAW. And even if those rules weren't there, you still have to find a rule that allows you to do it!
Same thing with the Bastion. You don't have to place the gun or relay on the top of it. They can go anywhere in your deployment zone.
Except that the BRB states that the gun is on top of the Bastion.
But I don't want to go in this discussion again. -Each section must be in base contact with another section. -A section is synonym for a piece.
Same thing with the Bastion. You don't have to place the gun or relay on the top of it. They can go anywhere in your deployment zone.
Except that the BRB states that the gun is on top of the Bastion.
Odd, I don't see where this is written. I do see the picture of the Bastion in its "data sheet" which clearly shows the Comm Relay next to the Bastion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I don't want to go in this discussion again.
-Each section must be in base contact with another section.
-A section is synonym for a piece.
Each ADL section must be in contact with another section, which is right after the composition (up to 4 short/long ADL sections). Context says they are referring to the ADL sections.
Happyjew wrote: Each ADL section must be in contact with another section, which is right after the composition (up to 4 short/long ADL sections). Context says they are referring to the ADL sections.
That is because the gun is only a part of the ADL, if you purchase the option for it.
Just because the rules don't work the "way you want them to" doesn't mean they cease to function. Sorry they forgot to put eyes on your models. 
