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.

Hey guys!

The compositions of an Aegis defence line tells us:
Composition: Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defence line sections. Each section of Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section.

Would it thus be legal to place up to 4 different 'groups' of at least 2 sections on the board, without those sections touching each other? For example, place one group of 4 sections on the left end of your deployment zone, and the other 4 sections in another group on the other end of the board.

After all, as long as a section is touching the other section(s) in the group, the base contact restriction seems to be met.

Redemption wrote:Hey guys!

The compositions of an Aegis defence line tells us:
Composition: Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defence line sections. Each section of Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section.

Would it thus be legal to place up to 4 different 'groups' of at least 2 sections on the board, without those sections touching each other? For example, place one group of 4 sections on the left end of your deployment zone, and the other 4 sections in another group on the other end of the board.

After all, as long as a section is touching the other section(s) in the group, the base contact restriction seems to be met.

Yes.

I think that would result in you having multiple different ADL's of shorter length. I dont believe that was how it was intended but the RAW seems to allow it.

The RAW seem pretty clear on the matter

Sounds like a yes to me.

But...just to be the devil's advocate ... =)

Does that mean you actually have to base the ADL sections? What is base to base contact if the model was not provided with a base?

Grugknuckle wrote:Does that mean you actually have to base the ADL sections? What is base to base contact if the model was not provided with a base?

Same as with a vehicle.

rigeld2 wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:Does that mean you actually have to base the ADL sections? What is base to base contact if the model was not provided with a base?

Same as with a vehicle.

Except the ADL do not have a Hull to measure to either.

I have a similar questions regarding then ADL and thought it was relevant enough to ask here. My question is this:

"would it be legal to use the ork
Barricades that GW sells as ADLs and would they count as small or larger pieces?"

How do they compare size wise? Are they about the same? Because as long as they have roughly the same length and height, I would think it would be O.K. Certainly fine in a friendly game. But in a tournament, I would ask first.

Grugknuckle wrote: What is base to base contact if the model was not provided with a base?

A wall has a base... as does anything with height, at least so far as casual English usage is concerned. So long as the bottom edges of the walls are touching, the rule is satisfied.

NateMurdah wrote:I have a similar questions regarding then ADL and thought it was relevant enough to ask here. My question is this:

"would it be legal to use the ork
Barricades that GW sells as ADLs and would they count as small or larger pieces?"

Grugknuckle wrote:How do they compare size wise? Are they about the same? Because as long as they have roughly the same length and height, I would think it would be O.K. Certainly fine in a friendly game. But in a tournament, I would ask first.

I can verify that the Ork barricades are almost the exact same length as the ADL when put end to end. Same height on average as well. The disadvantage is that the barricades don't have short and long pieces. Every piece is long. That means less variation in configuration.

Aside from that, anyone who would refuse you the use of it because it wasn't an "official" ADL, especially since it's nearly the exact same dimensions, is just being a dick.

Just a quick question to throw into this thread as I am interested in fielding the ADL next game.

My group uses the scenery placement method where you place D3 bits in each 2 foot square. Since it says to place the ADL before other scenery is put down, whats to stop my opponent putting a big bit of scenery smack bang infront (although 3 inches away) iof my ADL? I couldn't see anything disallowing it.

Is the best soloution to this doing what you suggest here, and splitting the ADL into 3 bits to max out the terrain in that zone anyway?

They left out of the definition both, "contiguous" and "closed". Therefore, yes, you could have 4 two-piece sections, a single non-closed one-piece section, or many other combinations of short and long pieces. Additionally, they put no restriction on section placement relative to each other.

vossyvo wrote:whats to stop my opponent putting a big bit of scenery smack bang infront (although 3 inches away) iof my ADL? I couldn't see anything disallowing it.

Nothing. It's commonly done. Unless of course you roll a 1 for your scenery in one section, then you can place your ADL there and he won't be able to put it DIRECTLY in front (since the ADL counts towards the scenery allocation)

vossyvo wrote:Is the best soloution to this doing what you suggest here, and splitting the ADL into 3 bits to max out the terrain in that zone anyway?

Pretty much, yes. But not for that reason. Remember that your ADL only counts towards the scenery in the area it mostly occupies, so you won't be maxing it out. It's still only one piece of scenery. But atleast it'll be very hard to block off three separate sections.

vossyvo wrote:My group uses the scenery placement method where you place D3 bits in each 2 foot square. Since it says to place the ADL before other scenery is put down, whats to stop my opponent putting a big bit of scenery smack bang infront (although 3 inches away) iof my ADL? I couldn't see anything disallowing it.

Yeah, it's entirely legal, which is why I don't like that placement method at all, as it usually leads to incredibly boring gaming tables. As people already know which side they're going to play on, people will just place the buildings and objectives in all kind of cheesy configurations, such as your example given above.

Thankfully my regular gaming group agrees and we just place the terrain and objectives before choosing deployment zones and table sides like we did in 5th, which leads to a more unbiased and fair table setup.

I hate it when someone puts a giant building right in front of my fortress of redemption's lascannon. Such a lame move.

We have already house ruled that you
1.) Place terrain in either narrative fashion, or roll the random density and then alternate.
2.) Roll mission and deployment.
3.) Roll initiative, winner chooses side they want.
4.) Deploy forts and army.
I know there are subtle reasons why GW did it the way they did it, but screw that, this way makes everyone I know MUCH more happy.

Now, this can have some adverse affects on the largest forts, but I think over all it's a more enjoyable method.

Most of the events I am going to have you place forts with the terrain already on the table, so that's generally how we play it.

Our clubs tournaments will reuqire you to remove a piece of terrain if you setup a fortification, but other than that i doubt any tourney will change the long standing its-our-terrain, dont-move-it rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Our clubs tournaments will reuqire you to remove a piece of terrain if you setup a fortification, but other than that i doubt any tourney will change the long standing its-our-terrain, dont-move-it rule.

Yeah, I think a couple of our locals are doing it that way.

I used to think the same way until I thought more closely about it.

pg 114 says: "Each section of Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section."

Now, when you place the first piece according to pg120, you obviously have to ignore this sentence. However, when you go to deploy the next piece it must touch another section. I'd like to know how you can place another piece without it touching one that is already on the table. It doesn't say you can put down 2 pieces together at a time. The word used is "Each" which implies one at a time.

As you already pointed out yourself, using that logic you wouldn't be able to place the first piece. If you have to break your interpretation of the rule immediatelly when using it, it's probably not a good interpretation.

And note that 'each' usually doesn't mean one at a time, it just means you have to consider every piece individually:
- Each stone here is round.
- The hallway has a door on each end.

patzerwv wrote:pg 114 says: "Each section of Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section."

Now, when you place the first piece according to pg120, you obviously have to ignore this sentence. However, when you go to deploy the next piece it must touch another section. I'd like to know how you can place another piece without it touching one that is already on the table. It doesn't say you can put down 2 pieces together at a time. The word used is "Each" which implies one at a time.

Unfortunatly "each" does not imply one at a time, only that the idividual pieces when they are placed are touching another. Which doesn't preclude the placing two down at once. Thus both pieces are each touching another when they were deployed.

And if you were really trying that line of thought I'd say you could never deploy the line at all, as how could you ever place the very first part of the line.

patzerwv wrote:I used to think the same way until I thought more closely about it.

pg 114 says: "Each section of Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section."

Now, when you place the first piece according to pg120, you obviously have to ignore this sentence. However, when you go to deploy the next piece it must touch another section. I'd like to know how you can place another piece without it touching one that is already on the table. It doesn't say you can put down 2 pieces together at a time. The word used is "Each" which implies one at a time.

I have 2 hands.
I'll place 2 at a time touching each other.

-Matt

NateMurdah wrote:I have a similar questions regarding then ADL and thought it was relevant enough to ask here. My question is this:

"would it be legal to use the ork
Barricades that GW sells as ADLs and would they count as small or larger pieces?"

The ADL is something like 28", So if you use 28" of ork barricade it should be fine

HawaiiMatt wrote:

I have 2 hands.
I'll place 2 at a time touching each other.

-Matt

I can see how this makes perfectly good sense; however, I can't thing of any times when the rules allow you to move multiple objects at the same time. Especially in this edition, it seems more like the nature of the rules implies first, then second, and so on.

Just trying to think outside of the box.

Ultimately I can't wait until there's a way that I can blow the thing up and ultimately put that str4 sizzle on all your little marines.

patzerwv wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

I have 2 hands.
I'll place 2 at a time touching each other.

-Matt

I can see how this makes perfectly good sense; however, I can't thing of any times when the rules allow you to move multiple objects at the same time.

The ADL is ONE piece of terrain. You're placing the whole thing down at ONE time. Therefore the actual placement of this ONE piece of terrain isn't concluded until you have placed all parts of it. I feel like you are REALLY over interpreting this. And with an interpretation that you yourself is breaking too. I've seen a lot of heated arguments on this forum about exact wording and the inclusion or exclusion of the word "the" etc etc. But this is the first time I have to say... you're being silly here.

Personally, with my current playlist I'd prefer my opponent to place his ADL all over the place. I normally focus fire then roll in with my grotesques before moving on to the next target. I think this post could linger on as a heated debate but that hasn't been my intention. I only wanted to point out that some people could take it in other ways and I can understand that. I haven't come to the point of spending my precious points on a structure yet that doesn't seem to help me only a little bit. Silly I'd agree with 8)