Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi Dakkas,

during a game I faced a problem to fit Heavy Weapon Team on the Bastion's battlement fitted with Quadgun. So I have a few questions:

1. Can I place the Quadgun NOT in the center of the battlement?
2. If NOT, are there any other ways of fitting the Heavy Weapon Team on the battlement?

3. Can Quadgun shoot directly down, e.g. to enemy unit standing base to base with Bastion?
4. Can the access point (the door) be used as a fire point?
5. Does a destroyed Bastion and/or Quadgun provide a Kill point?

Thanks!

1) Is being argued all the time (ask before you play, though in a friendly game i don't see why it should matter if you place it a little forward or backward)
2) Use a dev squad (no)
3) No, you need to be able to draw a line from the barrel to the target (though it's been argued that you can draw from the shooters eyes, either way if they are in b2b you won't be able to see them
4) does it have a window? or do they need to open it (yes this is a serious question as i forget) assuming no window then no.
5) No, it's not a unit.

Just an idea, put the hw team in the bastion and put plat squad on top.

Forgenoiser wrote:
1. Can I place the Quadgun NOT in the center of the battlement?
2. If NOT, are there any other ways of fitting the Heavy Weapon Team on the battlement?

You can place the Quadgun anywhere you want. By RAW, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the building at all.

Forgenoiser wrote:
3. Can Quadgun shoot directly down, e.g. to enemy unit standing base to base with Bastion?

Normal LoS rules with the appropriate angles apply.

Forgenoiser wrote:
4. Can the access point (the door) be used as a fire point?

An access point is not necessarily a fire point. The door does have little bars in it though, so you might want to discuss with your opponent if that is enough for a firepoint, beforehand.

Forgenoiser wrote:
5. Does a destroyed Bastion and/or Quadgun provide a Kill point?

No, as it is not an (friendly or enemy) unit.

 Mandor wrote:

Forgenoiser wrote:
1. Can I place the Quadgun NOT in the center of the battlement?
2. If NOT, are there any other ways of fitting the Heavy Weapon Team on the battlement?

You can place the Quadgun anywhere you want. By RAW, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the building at all.

That is not true at all.

The Gun Emplacement that is purchased as an option to the Bastion.

Saying it can go anywhere is like saying I can put the optional Sponson Lascannons from my Predator onto my Land Raider.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mandor wrote:

Forgenoiser wrote:
1. Can I place the Quadgun NOT in the center of the battlement?
2. If NOT, are there any other ways of fitting the Heavy Weapon Team on the battlement?

You can place the Quadgun anywhere you want. By RAW, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the building at all.

That is not true at all.

The Gun Emplacement that is purchased as an option to the Bastion.

Saying it can go anywhere is like saying I can put the optional Sponson Lascannons from my Predator onto my Land Raider.

...but can this option of the Bastion be placed a bit off center of the battlement?

Forgenoiser wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mandor wrote:

Forgenoiser wrote:
1. Can I place the Quadgun NOT in the center of the battlement?
2. If NOT, are there any other ways of fitting the Heavy Weapon Team on the battlement?

You can place the Quadgun anywhere you want. By RAW, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the building at all.

That is not true at all.

The Gun Emplacement that is purchased as an option to the Bastion.

Saying it can go anywhere is like saying I can put the optional Sponson Lascannons from my Predator onto my Land Raider.

...but can this option of the Bastion be placed a bit off center of the battlement?

No one really knows.

As an opponent I would not take issue with the Gun being anywhere on the roof.

Forgenoiser wrote:
...but can this option of the Bastion be placed a bit off center of the battlement?

As DeathReaper said, no one knows.

I also wouldn't have a problem with you placing it anywhere on the roof provided it actually fit there without constantly falling over and without being moved around. For example by modifying the floor of the battlements to move the socket for it to the new location or using magnets to hold the gun in place.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mandor wrote:

Forgenoiser wrote:
1. Can I place the Quadgun NOT in the center of the battlement?
2. If NOT, are there any other ways of fitting the Heavy Weapon Team on the battlement?

You can place the Quadgun anywhere you want. By RAW, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the building at all.

That is not true at all.

The Gun Emplacement that is purchased as an option to the Bastion.

Saying it can go anywhere is like saying I can put the optional Sponson Lascannons from my Predator onto my Land Raider.

How is this any different from the gun emplacement on the Aegis Defense Line? Even the wording is exactly the same. And in the picture in the rulebook the comm array is separate from the building. Emplaced weapons are a direct upgrade for the building. Gun emplacements are not.

 Mandor wrote:
Emplaced weapons are a direct upgrade for the building. Gun emplacements are not.

So you do not buy the Gun Emplacement under "Options" for the Bastion Fortification?

Wait, you do.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mandor wrote:
Emplaced weapons are a direct upgrade for the building. Gun emplacements are not.

So you do not buy the Gun Emplacement under "Options" for the Bastion Fortification?

Wait, you do.

And where are the rules requiring you to place that option on top of the bastion?
Even GW itself doesn't place it on top of the building, but on the ground.

 Mandor wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mandor wrote:
Emplaced weapons are a direct upgrade for the building. Gun emplacements are not.

So you do not buy the Gun Emplacement under "Options" for the Bastion Fortification?

Wait, you do.

And where are the rules requiring you to place that option on top of the bastion?
Even GW itself doesn't place it on top of the building, but on the ground.

The rules on P.120 that state "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

If you do not place the gun with the bastion it is not a single piece of terrain and you are breaking rules.

You might want to re-read that section to familiarize yourself with the terrain rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules on P.120 that state "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

If you do not place the gun with the bastion it is not a single piece of terrain and you are breaking rules.

You might want to re-read that section to familiarize yourself with the terrain rules.

You mean with rules you claim apply and get repeatedly debunked about? And then, in this thread, you claim as if written in RAW?

So based on more or less common opinion the Quadgun CAN be placed A BIT OFF CENTER of the battlement and the Bastion remains "a single substantial element of terrain". Great, in that case there is a plenty off space to fit a Heavy Weapons Team base, e.g. IG Autocannon, Missile launcher, etc.

Question regarding the "Line of Sight" of Missile launcher team:

Isn't it much more flexible to choose the shooting direction because the weapon is mounted on the guardsman's shoulder and NOT on the stationary tripod or carriage?

E.g. Guardsman can bend a bit over the wall of the battlement and target a near enemy unit. I assume other Heavy weapons (autocannon, mortar) are lucking such ability.

Trace line of sight from the models eyes, regardless of the weapon.

 Mandor wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules on P.120 that state "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

If you do not place the gun with the bastion it is not a single piece of terrain and you are breaking rules.

You might want to re-read that section to familiarize yourself with the terrain rules.

You mean with rules you claim apply and get repeatedly debunked about? And then, in this thread, you claim as if written in RAW?

If you think that is debunked, you clearly do not understand the term.

They do not use any actual rules to "Debunk" them.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you think that is debunked, you clearly do not understand the term.

They do not use any actual rules to "Debunk" them.

No, you're just missing the point and can't tell the difference between:

1) A general rule defining what is considered a single piece of terrain.

and

2) A specific rule telling you to, in a certain situation, place terrain objects using a given method for determining what objects you place and where you place them.


The rule on page 120 is an example of the latter. It only applies when you're doing that one step of that terrain placement method. It is NOT a general rule that defines what terrain is or how you use it outside of that one specific situation.

So you are saying that the ADL and the optional Gun Emplacement are not a single Fortification?

The Force Org Chart proves that wrong.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So you are saying that the ADL and the optional Gun Emplacement are not a single Fortification?

Please do not make ridiculous straw man arguments. You know perfectly well that I didn't say that.

The aegis line and the optional gun emplacement are a single fortification. However, there is no rule that imposes any limits on where the separate components of the fortification can be placed, beyond the standard rules (your table half, 3" from other fortifications) for where any fortification can be placed. Your idea that there is a maximum distance between the two components is entirely of your own creation, and has no support in the rules of the game.

So, by that logic, I can place my Sponson Lascannons from my predator onto my Landraider...

That line of thinking breaks the game.

Things bought as options clearly need to be with the thing they were bought for.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So, by that logic, I can place my Sponson Lascannons from my predator onto my Landraider...

No, because the instructions for building the Predator model tell you where to place them. The instructions for building the aegis line do not tell you where to place the gun in relation to the wall sections.

Things bought as options clearly need to be with the thing they were bought for.

Define "be with". And be precise, none of this "I know it when I see it" nonsense, I want an exact definition of where you feel that it is legal to place the gun in relation to the wall segments.

A related question.

If the bastion itself is unoccupied, but there's a unit on top. Can you still shoot at the bastion? Can you still put a template on top and hit both the unit and the bastion?

With the FAQ basically turning the battlements into mere cover, it would be unoccupied completely?

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So, by that logic, I can place my Sponson Lascannons from my predator onto my Landraider...

No, because the instructions for building the Predator model tell you where to place them. The instructions for building the aegis line do not tell you where to place the gun in relation to the wall sections.

And the "instructions for building the Predator model" are on what page in the BRB?

 Peregrine wrote:
Define "be with". And be precise, none of this "I know it when I see it" nonsense, I want an exact definition of where you feel that it is legal to place the gun in relation to the wall segments.

with
preposition
1.
accompanied by; accompanying: I will go with you. He fought with his brother against the enemy.

ac·com·pa·ny [uh-kuhm-puh-nee] Show IPA verb, ac·com·pa·nied, ac·com·pa·ny·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to go along or in company with; join in action: to accompany a friend on a walk.
2.
to be or exist in association or company with: Thunder accompanies lightning.
3.
to put in company with; cause to be or go along; associate (usually followed by with ): He accompanied his speech with gestures.

Just in case you don't know what it means...

 DeathReaper wrote:
And the "instructions for building the Predator model" are on what page in the BRB?

You are required to use the GW model. The model includes instructions.

Anyway, this is a terrible analogy because they aren't remotely the same at all. A single model is meant to be built in a certain way. A fortification is explicitly designed to be placed according to how the player wants it to be. Please stop ignoring the relevant questions and bringing up this ridiculous comparison to distract from the real issues involved.

In case you were wondering, here's the "relevant question":

please stop avoiding the question and give an answer wrote:Define "be with". And be precise, none of this "I know it when I see it" nonsense, I want an exact definition of where you feel that it is legal to place the gun in relation to the wall segments.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Dictionary nonsense.

Oh FFS, you know perfectly well what I meant. Don't dodge the question by quoting the dictionary like I just don't know what "with" means in normal language. The question is what "with" means in game terms. IOW:

Under what circumstances (distance, direction, etc) is an element of a fortification "with" another element of the same fortification. Please give specific distances, not just "I know it when I see it".

When it forms one single "thing", just like they FAQ'd an Aegis Defence line to be

nosferatu1001 wrote:
When it forms one single "thing", just like they FAQ'd an Aegis Defence line to be

1) Define "thing". Under what circumstances do two elements of a fortification form a "thing"? Please give exact distances/directions/etc, not just "I know it when I see it".

2) The FAQ does not apply. The FAQ only refers to the wall sections, not the gun emplacement, and the picture in the rulebook clearly shows the gun emplacement in a spot where it is not in contact with any of the wall sections.

So in the case of the basitian see pg 97 where it states where all emplaced weapons are located it would be a single piece for placement but because an aegis line doesn't state where the quad gun is emplaced you could put it in your deployment as long as it isn't within 3 innches of another piece of terrain

Define thing? Every part of the fortification is joined to at least one other part of the fortification.

Done.

 Peregrine wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
When it forms one single "thing", just like they FAQ'd an Aegis Defence line to be

1) Define "thing". Under what circumstances do two elements of a fortification form a "thing"? Please give exact distances/directions/etc, not just "I know it when I see it".

2) The FAQ does not apply. The FAQ only refers to the wall sections, not the gun emplacement, and the picture in the rulebook clearly shows the gun emplacement in a spot where it is not in contact with any of the wall sections.

Incorrect. The picture clearly shows it touching the wall section at the "back" of the ADL. Spatial awareness and spatial recognition. Draw a line from the base of the innermost section of the ADL wall through the back of the Quad gun and you will show that it is touching a portion of the wall, as has been shown in the past discussions about this.

These are ridiculous arguments.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So, by that logic, I can place my Sponson Lascannons from my predator onto my Landraider...

1) The term sponson directly means attached to the side of the vehicle. It's completely different to "Quad-gun emplacement" which has no reference to requiring an ADL around it.

Things bought as options clearly need to be with the thing they were bought for.

2) You mean like how a dedicated transport (an upgrade for a unit) doesn't require the unit to be inside it, or in base contact with it, or in fact anywhere near it on the table?

Your arguments are disingenuous, and I'm pretty sure you know they are.

For examples of the gun emplacement not being in contact with the ADL I refer you to:
page 89
page 104
page 114
page 116 (bastion)

 Griddlelol wrote:
These are ridiculous arguments.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So, by that logic, I can place my Sponson Lascannons from my predator onto my Landraider...

1) The term sponson directly means attached to the side of the vehicle. It's completely different to "Quad-gun emplacement" which has no reference to requiring an ADL around it.

Fine then change Sponson to Hunter Killer Missile. So you can put the HKM anywhere...

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh FFS, you know perfectly well what I meant. Don't dodge the question by quoting the dictionary like I just don't know what "with" means in normal language. The question is what "with" means in game terms. IOW:

Under what circumstances (distance, direction, etc) is an element of a fortification "with" another element of the same fortification. Please give specific distances, not just "I know it when I see it".

You do realize that the BRB does not define every term it uses right?

Therefore we have to fall back on the normal English definition of those words.

Unless you can find the 40k Definition of Remove, The, And, Benefit etc...

However, I the Unit Coherency rules tell us that units need to stick together, and they define that as 2 inches from another member of the unit.