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.

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.

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 always throw mine in the area fenced in/off by the ADL.

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.

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?

 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

 DeathReaper wrote:


"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.

I'm just thinking of how much terrain should be on a table if an ADL is considered a small piece but i agree that it must be clustered.

 jegsar wrote:
I'm just thinking of how much terrain should be on a table if an ADL is considered a small piece but i agree that it must be clustered.

Generally speaking: a lot more terrain is recommended than most places bother with.

On topic: clustered is the only thing that makes sense and DeathReaper makes a very good argument for that.

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?

 Peregrine wrote:

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".

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

According to what rule?

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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".

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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".

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Yes, Assign bias, thats a great way to discuss rules...

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:
[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.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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?

 Peregrine wrote:

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".

 Peregrine wrote:

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".

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.