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.

 Peregrine wrote:

"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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 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 GW intended 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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 GW intended 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?

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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".

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

For reference, here's the only non-fluff "attached" I could find in the BRB.

Dedicated Transports
Dedicated Transports sit outside the Force Organisation structure, as they are attached to the unit they are bought for.

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.

You might want to look at the Pic Again.

Clearly it is touching the back of the ADL.

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.

Gents, all your pictures are wrong, simply because the back of the Quad Gun isn't flat. There is a 5mm step out for the control panel.

Cheers

Andrew

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.

Let's not respond to Trolling, okay? Especially not with blanket condemnations of large groups of players. -Mannahnin

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".