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.

I'm not at all clear on the gun upgrades available on fortifications.

1. Is the Quad gun (for example) built-in to the Bastion like the Heavy Bolters are? Or is it a T7/2W/3+ model? (please cite sources, I couldn't find anything either way in the BRB)

2. Does the squad on the battlements fire it, or does the squad inside the Bastion fire it?

3. When manned by a squad, can a gun emplacement be shot separately, or does the unit get to soak up wounds/make armor saves?

4. If a model can fire two different guns (say, a Tau suit with a multi-tracker) in the shooting phase, can it fire one of its own weapons and one of the emplaced weapons if it wants?

1) Next to where the point cost is listed it says Gun Emplacement so that's your answer to that.

2)The models that can fire it have to be in BtB.

3) The gun emplacement is its own unit and needs to be targeted sepratly.

4) Yes, as long as it has rules to shoot twice.

So regarding 1), how does the language referring to the Quad-gun differ from the language referring to the Heavy Bolters? And how does the Fortress of Redemption's missile silo and Icarus Lascannon differ? Or the Fortress of Redemption's optional extra 4 Heavy Bolters?

And for 2) pg. 96 indicates that the units inside the building fire emplaced weapons. Why does this not apply?

In their infinite wisdom, GW made Gun Emplacements a completely different thing from Emplaced Weapons.

Emplaced weapons are part of a building and can be found on pg96. Anywhere that it refers to an 'Emplaced XXX', thats an emplaced weapon. If a building with emplaced weapons has models occupying it, the emplaced weapons can be fired in either manual or automatic fire modes.

Gun Emplacements are found on pg105. They aren't part of a building, but are a seperate T7 W2 model. The language used in this case is 'Gun Emplacement with XXX'. A model in base contact with a gun emplacement can fire it instead of their regular gun.

Emperor awfulness wrote:So regarding 1), how does the language referring to the Quad-gun differ from the language referring to the Heavy Bolters? And how does the Fortress of Redemption's missile silo and Icarus Lascannon differ? Or the Fortress of Redemption's optional extra 4 Heavy Bolters?

And for 2) pg. 96 indicates that the units inside the building fire emplaced weapons. Why does this not apply?

The quad gun and normal Icarus LC are gun emplacements (pg 105)

The HB, fragstorm and TL Icarus are Emplaced Weapons. (Pg 95).

They really should have used better names that sounded diffrent.
As for why the squad can not fire, they can fire Emplaced Weapons (or those weapons can autofire). To fire a Gun Emplacement, you need to be in BtB and there is no autofire.

Emperor awfulness wrote:I'm not at all clear on the gun upgrades available on fortifications.

Neither is GW!

Emperor awfulness wrote:1. Is the Quad gun (for example) built-in to the Bastion like the Heavy Bolters are? Or is it a T7/2W/3+ model? (please cite sources, I couldn't find anything either way in the BRB)

Indeterminate. Page 97 states that the gun on the roof of a Bastion is an "emplaced gun," while page 116 states that it is a "gun emplacement." I believe that "emplaced gun" is more likely to be correct, since it seems unlikely that the gun on a Bastion would be considered "battlefield debris," but this is unclear RAW and needs an FAQ.

Emperor awfulness wrote:2. Does the squad on the battlements fire it, or does the squad inside the Bastion fire it?

If the gun is an emplaced gun, only the squad inside the Bastion can fire it; if the gun is a gun emplacement, either the squad inside (as they will necessarily be in contact with the gun) or a squad on the battlements (if it has a model in base-to-base contact with the gun) can fire it.

Emperor awfulness wrote:3. When manned by a squad, can a gun emplacement be shot separately, or does the unit get to soak up wounds/make armor saves?

Gun emplacements can be shot separately. This does not affect the unit manning the gun, so they can't "soak up wounds," nor do wounds "spill over" onto them if the gun is destroyed. Note however that the gun has a 3+ armor save and, if deployed on a Bastion, likely benefits from a 3+ cover save as well. This does not apply to emplaced guns, which can only be destroyed by results on the building damage table.

Emperor awfulness wrote:4. If a model can fire two different guns (say, a Tau suit with a multi-tracker) in the shooting phase, can it fire one of its own weapons and one of the emplaced weapons if it wants?

Yes, as long as it is specifically noted as being able to fire multiple weapons thanks to a special rule or wargear item (such as a multi-tracker or servo-harness). A model with two pistols and the Gunslinger rule cannot fire one of his pistols and one of the emplaced weapons, as the Gunslinger rule only applies to pistols.

 Kingsley wrote:
Indeterminate. Page 97 states that the gun on the roof of a Bastion is an "emplaced gun," while page 116 states that it is a "gun emplacement." I believe that "emplaced gun" is more likely to be correct, since it seems unlikely that the gun on a Bastion would be considered "battlefield debris," but this is unclear RAW and needs an FAQ.

Page 97 is merely a descriptive caption on a picture while page 116 is the actual list entry, so I'd have to go with "gun emplacement".

According to the rules for multiple part buildings, a battlement is treated as a separate building (pg 95, 92). therefore, I don't think a unit inside the building could fire the gun on the battlements.

However, on pg. 97, it does mention the lascannon as an emplaced weapon in the same sentence as the heavy bolters, which implies it would use the rules on pg. 96 for emplaced weapons. The phrases 'emplaced weapon' and 'gun emplacement' seem to be interchangeable here.

According to pg. 92, the rules for battlements treat it as a separate building ('for shooting and assaults'), except that the units on top can be shot at. So firing at it would use the building damage chart and could harm the mens on top of it or destroy the emplaced weapon.

Since the lascannon/quad gun is emplaced, you don't need a dude to be in base contact, and can fire it automatically, or with your dude.

Nowhere does it say that a battlement has anything to do with 'battlefield debris', in fact it is entirely in the buildings section of the rules. This is clearly also marked as the 'terrain type' of the fortification on pg. 116 and 114. This makes sense because buildings are essentially vehicles, you can't shoot the turret off a vehicle as if it were a separate unit and the damage charts incorporate those possibilities.

If you read the entry for the Bastion (at least the part that tells you the point cost, and what upgrades you can take) The options are for a gun emplacement, not emplaced weapon.

Happyjew wrote:
If you read the entry for the Bastion (at least the part that tells you the point cost, and what upgrades you can take) The options are for a gun emplacement, not emplaced weapon.

so what's your point? What reason do we have to assume these things are different or that GW wants to make a distinction?

On the same page it says 'terrain type: building'. It doesn't matter what order the words are in. It matters where the weapon is and what it's part of. The same Quad gun is referred to in two different places as an emplaced weapon and a gun emplacement. So what?

If its in a building, it's part of that building, period. It is just like as with a vehicle.

 Meade wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
If you read the entry for the Bastion (at least the part that tells you the point cost, and what upgrades you can take) The options are for a gun emplacement, not emplaced weapon.

so what's your point? What reason do we have to assume these things are different or that GW wants to make a distinction?

On the same page it says 'terrain type: building'. It doesn't matter what order the words are in. It matters where the weapon is and what it's part of. The same Quad gun is referred to in two different places as an emplaced weapon and a gun emplacement. So what?

If its in a building, it's part of that building, period. It is just like as with a vehicle.

Instead of quoting the differences I will just direct you to the relevant pages. Page 96 for Emplaced Weapons, Page 105 for Gun Emplacements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, page 116, Imperial Bastion comes with 4 emplaced heavy bolters, and has the option to buy a gun emplacement with "X".

Happyjew wrote:


Instead of quoting the differences I will just direct you to the relevant pages. Page 96 for Emplaced Weapons, Page 105 for Gun Emplacements.


Furthermore, page 116, Imperial Bastion comes with 4 emplaced heavy bolters, and has the option to buy a gun emplacement with "X".

Yeah I've read all those pages. Again I will reiterate:

1. Is there any proof that 'emplaced weapon' and 'gun emplacement' mean different things? For example, can you prove to me that if there was an option to buy a heavy bolter on the battlement it wouldn't say, 'gun emplacement with heavy bolter'? (On pg.116) Nowhere is there effort made to distinguish them. There is a rules section for buildings, and a rules section for battlefield debris. They are not meant to mix.

I'm suggesting that it means the same thing, except that if the fortification (that the gun is part of) is 'battlefield debris' it operates under the rules in that section of the rulebook, and not the rules for buildings and battlements. When a gun emplacement is bought as a part of a building, it becomes 'emplaced'. 'emplacement weapon' is just what happens when a 'gun emplacement' is part of a building.

This is further backed up by pg. 97: "this bastion has several emplaced weapns, a hvy bolter on each facing and a lascannon on the roof".

2. Do you have proof that a battlement is meant to be treated as battlefield debris? because that is what you are suggesting. The rules are very clear that battlements are a building, and operate with the same principles, such as rolling on the damage chart to destroy emplaced weapons.

 Meade wrote:
1. Is there any proof that 'emplaced weapon' and 'gun emplacement' mean different things?

If separate definitions with completely different meanings doesn't count as proof, could anything count as proof?

 Meade wrote:
For example, can you prove to me that if there was an option to buy a heavy bolter on the battlement it wouldn't say, 'gun emplacement with heavy bolter'?

Wait, you think the difference between "emplaced weapon" and "gun emplacement" is whether they are purchased? There're emplaced heavy bolter right there on the same page, there's just not a points cost.

 Meade wrote:
There is a rules section for buildings, and a rules section for battlefield debris. They are not meant to mix.

You're not exactly meeting the standard of proof you're asking for, y'know.

 Meade wrote:
I'm suggesting that it means the same thing, except that if the fortification (that the gun is part of) is 'battlefield debris' it operates under the rules in that section of the rulebook, and not the rules for buildings and battlements. When a gun emplacement is bought as a part of a building, it becomes 'emplaced'. 'emplacement weapon' is just what happens when a 'gun emplacement' is part of a building.

I'd be okay with that, but it's not really in the rules.

 Meade wrote:
This is further backed up by pg. 97: "this bastion has several emplaced weapns, a hvy bolter on each facing and a lascannon on the roof".

I have an alternate theory: That's just another one of the picture-caption errors in the rulebook. Hardly something you can hang a solid argument on.

 Meade wrote:
2. Do you have proof that a battlement is meant to be treated as battlefield debris? because that is what you are suggesting.

What? No it isn't. We're merely suggesting that it's possible for battlefield debris to end up behind a battlement. Hardly a revolutionary idea!

Pyrian wrote:

 Meade wrote:
1. Is there any proof that 'emplaced weapon' and 'gun emplacement' mean different things?

If separate definitions with completely different meanings doesn't count as proof, could anything count as proof?

I'm sorry, you lost me there. There are rules for how gun emplacements work in buildings, and how they work as battle debris.

Wait, you think the difference between "emplaced weapon" and "gun emplacement" is whether they are purchased? There're emplaced heavy bolter right there on the same page, there's just not a points cost.

No. There is no difference. That is what I am saying. When a gun emplacement is part of a building, you can say it is an emplaced weapon. It means the same thing gramatically.

You're not exactly meeting the standard of proof you're asking for, y'know.

pg. 92 the rules for buildings start. pg. 104 the rules for battle debris. That's proof that there are separate rules for each, right?

see the thing is, I don't have anything weird to prove. I'm just reading the rulebook, and nowhere does it say there is a difference between an emplaced weapon and a gun emplacement, or that they have special meanings, beyond what their context is.

I'd be okay with that, but it's not really in the rules.

It's not mentioned specifically the way I said, no. But there is no reason to assume otherwise. Again, because GW in the same book describes the same thing as both a gun emplacement and an emplaced weapon. So claiming that they mean two different things, when all that's really happened is that two different rules sections had different ways of describing how fortified weapons work, is a stretch.

I have an alternate theory: That's just another one of the picture-caption errors in the rulebook. Hardly something you can hang a solid argument on.

Your argument is that GW made a mistake? I'd say that's pretty weak. They could have made a mistake anywhere. In any case this only backs up my argument. They main argument is that the rules for buildings and battlefield debris are clear and separate.

What? No it isn't. We're merely suggesting that it's possible for battlefield debris to end up behind a battlement. Hardly a revolutionary idea!

technically, yes, it is a revolutionary idea. Battlefield debris exists as part of a game board. A battlement is a building. What exists on top of a battlement works under the same rules as for buildings and vehicles, (except for the clear exception that units on top of battlements can be shot at) . When you shoot at a battlement, you roll on the damage table. If you roll a number 4 on that table, an emplaced weapon is destroyed. It would be like me saying that area terrain could exist on the inside of a vehicle and the dudes inside could take cover from it. Is a gun emplacement a unit? Is clearly defined as battlefield debris that can exist inside of a vehicle or building? If not, then there is nothing to back up these claims.