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 there is a bit of confusion locally on what exactly the cover saves are for these items.

I do not have my book with me here but as I recall the Bastion, Fortress, Skyshield and Aegis Defense line are all listed as "Fortifications".

Fortifications would appear to have a 3+ cover save if I am remembering correctly.

I believe the Aegis Defense line has its own specail rule however that indicates it provides a 4+ cover save, even though it is listed as a fortification. I may be worng about this.

I seem to recall the Skyshield providing some sort of special invulnerable save as opposed to a cover save but I may be wrong.

The question then becomes what are the cover saves for each of the following?:

1. Troops on top of a Bastion
2. Troops on top of the Fortress
3. Troops on top of the Skyshield
4. A quad gun emplacement on top of the Bastion

A secondary question occurs to me that is probably in the rule book and i am forgeting it but if a Quad Gun is on top of a Bastion and some weapon penetrates the armor 14 Bastion resulting in a vehicle destroyed - explosion result, is the Quad gun automatically lost as well?

Thanks for any clarification.

The part on top of the Bastion is what is on Aegis Defense Line, thus it confers a 4+ cover. It doesn't have area terrain rule so a barrage shot right on top of the Bastion will disallow cover save to those units.

Fortress works like 4 mini-Bastion with only 1 building in the middle.

Same thing for Skyshield although models that are too far inside the Skyshield might not get directional cover save if the shooting units is higher up (e.g. flyers).

RE: Bastion's quad-gun. It is destroyed when the Bastion is destroyed per the rule of the Building Damage Chart.

leohart wrote:
RE: Bastion's quad-gun. It is destroyed when the Bastion is destroyed per the rule of the Building Damage Chart.

The quad gun would not be affected by the destruction of the "emplaced weapons" on the buildings. There is another thread on what happens to them.

leohart wrote:
RE: Bastion's quad-gun. It is destroyed when the Bastion is destroyed per the rule of the Building Damage Chart.

This is incorrect. The Quad Gun is a Gun Emplacement, not an Emplaced Weapon. Only Emplaced Weapons are destroyed.

leohart wrote:
The part on top of the Bastion is what is on Aegis Defense Line, thus it confers a 4+ cover. It doesn't have area terrain rule so a barrage shot right on top of the Bastion will disallow cover save to those units.

Fortress works like 4 mini-Bastion with only 1 building in the middle.

Same thing for Skyshield although models that are too far inside the Skyshield might not get directional cover save if the shooting units is higher up (e.g. flyers).

RE: Bastion's quad-gun. It is destroyed when the Bastion is destroyed per the rule of the Building Damage Chart.

Wow, way to make a bunch of stuff up.

Cover in the battlements of your fortification is that for a fortification, unless otherwise stated.

You determine if you are in cover via the LOS rules.

So Bastion/FoR Battlements grant a 3+ Cover save to those 25%+ obscured.

ADL is only a 4+ for being a Battlefield debris(Defense Line); but going to ground makes it a 2+ anyways, so...

The Top of the SSLP is Open terrain, so no Cover save from <25% LOS, but is the LOS is 25%+ obscured in any way, it provides a 3+. It also does, situationally, provide an invulnerable save,
but you will have to look that up on your own.

So if I understand this correctly, in regards to the SSLP, you get the invulnerable save if the walls are furled, however if those same walls are providing you cover due to qualifications under the LOS issues, you would get a 3+ cover save.

If the walls are unfurled however, you would not get any invulnerable save and chances are, depending on who is shooting at you and from where, you are either not getting any cover save (from units above or even with you), you are getting a 3+ cover save (from units beneath you that can still see you) or you are out of LOS and cannot be targeted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:

leohart wrote:
RE: Bastion's quad-gun. It is destroyed when the Bastion is destroyed per the rule of the Building Damage Chart.

This is incorrect. The Quad Gun is a Gun Emplacement, not an Emplaced Weapon. Only Emplaced Weapons are destroyed.

I understand the difference between the Emplaced Weapon and the Gun Emplacement, just not sure how the Gun Emplacement survives having the building it is standing on all of a sudden become a crater or ruins.

I know that other models such as infantry would get a save of some sort when that building is blown up, but what save would the Gun Emplacement get? Does it just take the strength 4 hit and go from there?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

leohart wrote:
The part on top of the Bastion is what is on Aegis Defense Line, thus it confers a 4+ cover. It doesn't have area terrain rule so a barrage shot right on top of the Bastion will disallow cover save to those units.

Fortress works like 4 mini-Bastion with only 1 building in the middle.

Same thing for Skyshield although models that are too far inside the Skyshield might not get directional cover save if the shooting units is higher up (e.g. flyers).

RE: Bastion's quad-gun. It is destroyed when the Bastion is destroyed per the rule of the Building Damage Chart.

Wow, way to make a bunch of stuff up.

Cover in the battlements of your fortification is that for a fortification, unless otherwise stated.

You determine if you are in cover via the LOS rules.

So Bastion/FoR Battlements grant a 3+ Cover save to those 25%+ obscured.

ADL is only a 4+ for being a Battlefield debris(Defense Line); but going to ground makes it a 2+ anyways, so...

The Top of the SSLP is Open terrain, so no Cover save from <25% LOS, but is the LOS is 25%+ obscured in any way, it provides a 3+. It also does, situationally, provide an invulnerable save,
but you will have to look that up on your own.

My bad. I apologize for spreading wrong information. I re-read the book and fortification does give a 3+ (except ADL which gives a 4+) if units is 25% covered by it.

Hialmar wrote:
So if I understand this correctly, in regards to the SSLP, you get the invulnerable save if the walls are furled, however if those same walls are providing you cover due to qualifications under the LOS issues, you would get a 3+ cover save.

If the walls are unfurled however, you would not get any invulnerable save and chances are, depending on who is shooting at you and from where, you are either not getting any cover save (from units above or even with you), you are getting a 3+ cover save (from units beneath you that can still see you) or you are out of LOS and cannot be targeted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:

leohart wrote:
RE: Bastion's quad-gun. It is destroyed when the Bastion is destroyed per the rule of the Building Damage Chart.

This is incorrect. The Quad Gun is a Gun Emplacement, not an Emplaced Weapon. Only Emplaced Weapons are destroyed.

I understand the difference between the Emplaced Weapon and the Gun Emplacement, just not sure how the Gun Emplacement survives having the building it is standing on all of a sudden become a crater or ruins.

I know that other models such as infantry would get a save of some sort when that building is blown up, but what save would the Gun Emplacement get? Does it just take the strength 4 hit and go from there?

There is another thread on what happens to it, that is being debated. But it has T7, W2, Sv 3+ for a statline. That is sufficient to apply Leap down.

Fragile wrote:

There is another thread on what happens to it, that is being debated. But it has T7, W2, Sv 3+ for a statline. That is sufficient to apply Leap down.

Do you happen to have the link to that thread?

Hialmar wrote:

Fragile wrote:

There is another thread on what happens to it, that is being debated. But it has T7, W2, Sv 3+ for a statline. That is sufficient to apply Leap down.

Do you happen to have the link to that thread?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/473049.page

The thread is not based on this situation, but the final few posts discuss it.

There is nothing in the rules that discuss what happens to an immobile model on the battlements when the building is destroyed, so we simply follow the rules we do have.

There is really nothing in the rulebook that suggests that emplaced weapons are somehow different than a gun emplacement. I believe the confusion is just a product of language (cultural differences perhaps??). The book mentions the Icarus lascannon a bunch of times as an emplaced weapon, casually. There is never any effort to make a clear distinction and therefore no reason to make one.

The top of the bastion is meant to be treated like a building, with the ONLY exception being that you can fire at the dudes on top, they can leap down, and are less at risk from the damage chart... a bit like an open topped vehicle. The rules tell us how to deal with weapons inside a building very clearly... by rolling on the damage chart. But still people insist on making up crazy theories about the gun emplacement having a statline, being shot at, "leaping down" or even deploying in other places on the board...

 Meade wrote:
There is really nothing in the rulebook that suggests that emplaced weapons are somehow different than a gun emplacement. I believe the confusion is just a product of language (cultural differences perhaps??). The book mentions the Icarus lascannon a bunch of times as an emplaced weapon, casually. There is never any effort to make a clear distinction and therefore no reason to make one.

Pg 96 and pg 105 would clearly dispute your statement.

The top of the bastion is meant to be treated like a building, with the ONLY exception being that you can fire at the dudes on top, they can leap down, and are less at risk from the damage chart... a bit like an open topped vehicle. The rules tell us how to deal with weapons inside a building very clearly...

The top of a building would be called the battlements. It has its own rules. pg 95.

by rolling on the damage chart. But still people insist on making up crazy theories about the gun emplacement having a statline, being shot at, "leaping down" or even deploying in other places on the board...

Again pg 105. Look under the heading Gun Emplacement

 Meade wrote:
There is really nothing in the rulebook that suggests that emplaced weapons are somehow different than a gun emplacement. I believe the confusion is just a product of language (cultural differences perhaps??). The book mentions the Icarus lascannon a bunch of times as an emplaced weapon, casually. There is never any effort to make a clear distinction and therefore no reason to make one.

The top of the bastion is meant to be treated like a building, with the ONLY exception being that you can fire at the dudes on top, they can leap down, and are less at risk from the damage chart... a bit like an open topped vehicle. The rules tell us how to deal with weapons inside a building very clearly... by rolling on the damage chart. But still people insist on making up crazy theories about the gun emplacement having a statline, being shot at, "leaping down" or even deploying in other places on the board...

You have made this claim before and it is still invalid; they are separate terms with separate rules:
Emplaced weapons may auto-fire, Gun emplacements cannot.

The only things they have in comon are the root word "Emplace" in their name; and the ability to allow a model to fire them.

They are wholly different beasts.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


You have made this claim before and it is still invalid; they are separate terms with separate rules:
Emplaced weapons may auto-fire, Gun emplacements cannot.

The only things they have in comon are the root word "Emplace" in their name; and the ability to allow a model to fire them.

They are wholly different beasts.

That proves nothing. There are separate rules for how models act when they are embarked in a vehicle and outside. Does that make them different 'beasts'? In a way yes, but we are still talking about the same thing. The different beasts are the rulesets for vehicles and what happens outside of vehicles. Gun emplacements are no different. GW had to write two separate rulesets for how they operated in buildings and outside. They tell us which set of rules to use on the fortification data sheet. If it says 'battlefield debris', you go and read the entry there. if it says 'building', you read the entry for emplaced weapons.

I've read pages 96 and 105. All i see is two separate rulesets describing how the guns operate in buildings and in terrain. Nobody has addressed this issue. Nobody has argued against the fact that a bastion is treated as a building.

And the fact that GW refers to an Icarus lascannon as BOTH an emplaced weapon and a gun emplacement backs me up on this.

With all respect, guys. I was playing it wrong too before I realized this.

Regarding the Icarus, the reason it refers to 2 different rules is because there are 2 different types of Icarus lascannon. the normal type used with Bastions and Aegis lines is a gun emplacement, while the FoR has a twin linked version as an emplaced weapon, rather than a gun emplacement.

 Meade wrote:
That proves nothing. There are separate rules for how models act when they are embarked in a vehicle and outside. Does that make them different 'beasts'? In a way yes, but we are still talking about the same thing. The different beasts are the rulesets for vehicles and what happens outside of vehicles. Gun emplacements are no different. GW had to write two separate rulesets for how they operated in buildings and outside. They tell us which set of rules to use on the fortification data sheet. If it says 'battlefield debris', you go and read the entry there. if it says 'building', you read the entry for emplaced weapons.

A Lascannon on a tank is no different from a Lascannon on a Marine; what is different is the platform carrying them; so you point here invalidates your claims that Emplaced weapons and Gun Emplacements are different, Just like a Space marine and a Predator are different.

If GW wanted them to be the same thing they would have told us that Gun Emplacements are Emplaced weapons on a T7 2W model instead of a Building, or they would have told us that Emplaced weapons are merely Gun emplacements that are part of buildings(thus not having the T7, 2W stats) and can auto-fire.

I've read pages 96 and 105. All i see is two separate rulesets describing how the guns operate in buildings and in terrain. Nobody has addressed this issue. Nobody has argued against the fact that a bastion is treated as a building.

This makes no sense for your argument against those 2 different rulesets making the 2 different items. I am not sure what you are saying about the bastion; yes it is a Med Building Fortification with 4 Emplaced weapons(Heavy bolters) and you may purchase a Gun Emplacement(Quad gun or Icarus Lascannon) for it. What is there to argue? The gun emplacement is a separate peice of terrain, but still a part-and-parcel with the Bastion; you may deploy the Gun Emplacement any where on the table, including on top of the Bastion(because each terrain "piece" can consist of severel separate pieces)

And the fact that GW refers to an Icarus lascannon as BOTH an emplaced weapon and a gun emplacement backs me up on this.

No that kind of backs up the position that they are 2 separate things, it just so happens that in the various instances it can be either, just like any other gun in the game.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


A Lascannon on a tank is no different from a Lascannon on a Marine; what is different is the platform carrying them; so you point here invalidates your claims that Emplaced weapons and Gun Emplacements are different, Just like a Space marine and a Predator are different.

No, I am saying that an Icarus lascannon on and off a building is also one and the same. What is different is the platform that is carrying them. A building is like a vehicle. When, an only when, you have one just sitting on the board, they made rules for 'battlefield debris'- because they needed to specify how it gets hit by shooting and in combat. When it's emplaced in a building, you don't have that problem, because you just roll for armor penetration and on the damage table.

If GW wanted them to be the same thing they would have told us that Gun Emplacements are Emplaced weapons on a T7 2W model instead of a Building, or they would have told us that Emplaced weapons are merely Gun emplacements that are part of buildings(thus not having the T7, 2W stats) and can auto-fire.

How can you 'emplace' a weapon on a model? You are thinking of it as a unit. A gun emplacement is not an unit, it's a piece of terrain essentially... just with special rules. GW is thinking about this in a much more casual way than you are. They merely wrote a section for buildings, and a section for battle debris. ANY weapon can be used as either, depending on how you want to play it. The gun emplacement rules just specify what to do if you have a gun sitting on the board like artillery.

This makes no sense for your argument against those 2 different rulesets making the 2 different items. I am not sure what you are saying about the bastion; yes it is a Med Building Fortification with 4 Emplaced weapons(Heavy bolters) and you may purchase a Gun Emplacement(Quad gun or Icarus Lascannon) for it. What is there to argue? The gun emplacement is a separate peice of terrain, but still a part-and-parcel with the Bastion; you may deploy the Gun Emplacement any where on the table, including on top of the Bastion(because each terrain "piece" can consist of severel separate pieces)

Same item, two different rulesets. Again like a lascannon on a vehicle or on a dude.

So you admit the bastion is a building. In fact it's a multi-part building. You can fire at the battlements or the bunker part. So lets say you fire at the battlements and roll a pen, and roll on the damage table. You get a result to destroy an emplaced weapon. Now if it is like you say, and any weapon on the battlements can also be fired at, why would they write into the rules two different ways to destroy the same weapon? No, because the area on the top of a battlement is not treated the same way as area on the game board. It is more like the area on an open topped vehicle. The models inside can interact with the game, but in limited ways. You can't stick elements of terrain on the top in the same way you can't stick them in a vehicle.

In addition to this, the datasheet for the bastion clearly says: Building. You should not need to go to the battlefield debris section to know how it works, there is nothing on that datasheet that says the emplaced weapon is a separate piece of terrain within the building, save for the link that the same wording of 'gun emplacement' is used. There is no reason to assume that because the wording is the same you have permission to use a completely different ruleset for terrain, instead of the ruleset that's been given and that works perfectly well.

No that kind of backs up the position that they are 2 separate things, it just so happens that in the various instances it can be either, just like any other gun in the game.

Yes, in various instances an Icarus lascannon can be emplaced in a building, or terrain on the battlefield. But it cannot be terrain inside a building. Because no rules exist for that. That is why GW says: A bastion has an emplaced Icarus lascannon. There is no weird distinction that just because the wording is the same, you have to differentiate between whether that gun on your battlements is a piece of terrain or part of the building (according to you it could be either, right?)

Yes the weapon "Icarus Lascannon" is the same no matter what it is mounted on, just like the regular Lascannon is the same whether mounted on an Infantry model or a vehicle.

It is the method of mounting that is different: Emplaced weapons are effectively vehicle mounted in that they are building mounted. Gun emplacements are mounted on the weapon portion of an Artillery unit type; 2 different mounting with 2 different rulesets makes them 2 different things.

You are not understanding what I am saying; when firing at the battlement, you cannot destroy the Gun emplacement via a pen result.; because a Gun emplacement is not an emplaced weapon.

GW sayiong Emplaced Icarus that you speak of is on page 89, right?

Do you see how that example is telling you that the players have agreed to treat it that way? That whole page is discussing pure terrain, not Fortifications purchased and the top of that page even explains that this is a bunch of examples of how the players decided to use their terrain.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yes the weapon "Icarus Lascannon" is the same no matter what it is mounted on, just like the regular Lascannon is the same whether mounted on an Infantry model or a vehicle.

I agree, like a gun emplacement and a weapon emplacement are two ways of saying the same thing (a weapon that's part of a fortification) but behave differently in a building or as battlefield debris. You determine how the weapons will function by looking at the datasheet for the fortification and use the corresponding rules for either battlefield debris or buildings.

It is the method of mounting that is different: Emplaced weapons are effectively vehicle mounted in that they are building mounted. Gun emplacements are mounted on the weapon portion of an Artillery unit type; 2 different mounting with 2 different rulesets makes them 2 different things.

We are getting tied up in vague language here. Gun emplacements are a form of terrain, they are not a unit. They have a profile, but only for the purposes of being assaulted or being shot at. On pg. 95, second paragraph, it says UNITS on battlements can be shot at. It does not mention that anything else can be shot at. Therefore there is no permission to do it.

You are not understanding what I am saying; when firing at the battlement, you cannot destroy the Gun emplacement via a pen result.; because a Gun emplacement is not an emplaced weapon.

I am saying that my version is simpler, and there are actually rules for it. Treating the weapon as part of the building, (explained in the paragraph entitled "emplaced weapons"... its a paragraph title, nothing more) you have rules for how to destroy it. Treating it your way, there are no rules, you are making them up. There is nothing in the rules for buildings that says elements of terrain may be placed in them and shot at. Only units may be shot at, but otherwise they are treated as being embarked. There is no permission to embark a piece of terrain in a vehicle.

GW sayiong Emplaced Icarus that you speak of is on page 89, right?

Do you see how that example is telling you that the players have agreed to treat it that way? That whole page is discussing pure terrain, not Fortifications purchased and the top of that page even explains that this is a bunch of examples of how the players decided to use their terrain.

Pg. 89 as well as 97 (first paragraph) we have descriptions that use the phrases 'emplaced weapon' and 'gun emplacement' interchangeably. People claim that the sentence on pg. 97 was a typo. You are claiming that the players are just 'making up' ways to use the terrain.

That whole page is an intro page, with a pictorial example of every kind of terrain. There is no reason to assume that the fortifications are weird or made up in any way, but rather that they are purchased terrain... that is what fortifications are... and are part of a *normal* game, where as in example the defense lines have a 'weapon emplacement' that is using the rules for 'gun emplacements' (?) and in example G an Icarus lascannon that is an emplaced weapon. An emplaced weapon that it normally should be and never should be anything else.

You are being confused by Games Workshop's language, you are reading way too much into it. I am telling you GW does not give a feth. They say 'weapon emplacement' just as a general term to describe a weapon that is part of some fortification. When it comes to using rules you can make up any rules you want dude. I don't care as long as players agree beforehand! But am only arguing that that's only way that's described in this rulebook, that makes sense and is actually described, step by step, how you do it. It's exactly what they are doing in the picture on pg. 89. I could be wrong though!

We are getting tied up in vague language here. Gun emplacements are a form of terrain, they are not a unit. They have a profile, but only for the purposes of being assaulted or being shot at. On pg. 95, second paragraph, it says UNITS on battlements can be shot at. It does not mention that anything else can be shot at. Therefore there is no permission to do it.

A gun emplacement on a battlement could be shot at.

Fragile wrote:

We are getting tied up in vague language here. Gun emplacements are a form of terrain, they are not a unit. They have a profile, but only for the purposes of being assaulted or being shot at. On pg. 95, second paragraph, it says UNITS on battlements can be shot at. It does not mention that anything else can be shot at. Therefore there is no permission to do it.

A gun emplacement on a battlement could be shot at.

where in the rules for buildings does it say this?

 Meade wrote:

Fragile wrote:

We are getting tied up in vague language here. Gun emplacements are a form of terrain, they are not a unit. They have a profile, but only for the purposes of being assaulted or being shot at. On pg. 95, second paragraph, it says UNITS on battlements can be shot at. It does not mention that anything else can be shot at. Therefore there is no permission to do it.

A gun emplacement on a battlement could be shot at.

where in the rules for buildings does it say this?

It's not in the rules for buildings, it's Page 105: "The gun emplacement can be shot at". There is the permission to fire at gun emplacement. Nowhere in the battlement rules does it say that "gun emplacement on battlement can NOT be shot at" and therefore, it can be shot.

Fact that there is separate permission to shoot at Units that are on battlements is irrelevant.

The weapon can either be an Emplaced Weapon or a Gun Emplacement. For the Bastion I thought you bought it as a Gun Emplacement with all the associated rules and therefore it could be fired upon separately. In the case of the FoR its an emplaced weapon purchased as part of the building with different rules.

Luide wrote:
It's not in the rules for buildings, it's Page 105: "The gun emplacement can be shot at". There is the permission to fire at gun emplacement. Nowhere in the battlement rules does it say that "gun emplacement on battlement can NOT be shot at" and therefore, it can be shot.

Fact that there is separate permission to shoot at Units that are on battlements is irrelevant.

It's not in the rules for buildings. Exactly. There is nowhere in the rules where it gives permission to place, or shoot at, a piece of battlefield debris on a battlement. It does say 'gun emplacement' is the upgrade but as this language is interchangeable with 'weapon emplacement', the basis to use the rules on pg. 105 is very weak, and only based on the premise that a 'weapon emplacement' and 'gun emplacement' mean separate things. They are merely two rulesets for buildings and for battle debris, as I have clearly demonstrated.

 Meade wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yes the weapon "Icarus Lascannon" is the same no matter what it is mounted on, just like the regular Lascannon is the same whether mounted on an Infantry model or a vehicle.

I agree, like a gun emplacement and a weapon emplacement are two ways of saying the same thing (a weapon that's part of a fortification) but behave differently in a building or as battlefield debris. You determine how the weapons will function by looking at the datasheet for the fortification and use the corresponding rules for either battlefield debris or buildings.

That is not even close to what I said.

It is the method of mounting that is different: Emplaced weapons are effectively vehicle mounted in that they are building mounted. Gun emplacements are mounted on the weapon portion of an Artillery unit type; 2 different mounting with 2 different rulesets makes them 2 different things.

We are getting tied up in vague language here. Gun emplacements are a form of terrain, they are not a unit. They have a profile, but only for the purposes of being assaulted or being shot at. On pg. 95, second paragraph, it says UNITS on battlements can be shot at. It does not mention that anything else can be shot at. Therefore there is no permission to do it.

Language is not vague at all, when purchased for a bastion the Bastion and the Gun Emplacement are 2 different elements of the same "Terrain Piece"; the Gun Emplacement rules allow it to be shot at or assaulted as if it were a unit in it's own right(because being a unit is the only way you may target anything with either shooting or assault).

You are not understanding what I am saying; when firing at the battlement, you cannot destroy the Gun emplacement via a pen result.; because a Gun emplacement is not an emplaced weapon.

I am saying that my version is simpler, and there are actually rules for it. Treating the weapon as part of the building, (explained in the paragraph entitled "emplaced weapons"... its a paragraph title, nothing more) you have rules for how to destroy it. Treating it your way, there are no rules, you are making them up. There is nothing in the rules for buildings that says elements of terrain may be placed in them and shot at. Only units may be shot at, but otherwise they are treated as being embarked. There is no permission to embark a piece of terrain in a vehicle.

your way is not the rules; which is what i take exception to: you keep couching your house-rules as the rules. There are also rules for both the allowance and treatment of a gun emplacement on a Bastion that purchases it.

GW sayiong Emplaced Icarus that you speak of is on page 89, right?

Do you see how that example is telling you that the players have agreed to treat it that way? That whole page is discussing pure terrain, not Fortifications purchased and the top of that page even explains that this is a bunch of examples of how the players decided to use their terrain.

Pg. 89 as well as 97 (first paragraph) we have descriptions that use the phrases 'emplaced weapon' and 'gun emplacement' interchangeably. People claim that the sentence on pg. 97 was a typo. You are claiming that the players are just 'making up' ways to use the terrain.

That whole page is an intro page, with a pictorial example of every kind of terrain. There is no reason to assume that the fortifications are weird or made up in any way, but rather that they are purchased terrain... that is what fortifications are... and are part of a *normal* game, where as in example the defense lines have a 'weapon emplacement' that is using the rules for 'gun emplacements' (?) and in example G an Icarus lascannon that is an emplaced weapon. An emplaced weapon that it normally should be and never should be anything else.

You are being confused by Games Workshop's language, you are reading way too much into it. I am telling you GW does not give a feth. They say 'weapon emplacement' just as a general term to describe a weapon that is part of some fortification. When it comes to using rules you can make up any rules you want dude. I don't care as long as players agree beforehand! But am only arguing that that's only way that's described in this rulebook, that makes sense and is actually described, step by step, how you do it. It's exactly what they are doing in the picture on pg. 89. I could be wrong though!

Page 97, huh; see how the Label "C" is on the emplaced Heavy bolter(you know the standard emplaced weapon on a bastion)? Also, do you notice how the Icarus Lascannon has no Labeling at all? That does not prove in any way that the Icarus is anything at all in that photo.

They are 2 separate items with 2 separate rules; what part of that do you not understand, you have even admitted that the 2 have separate rules just Stop.

Sorry guys I think I've gone as far as I can without repeating myself. I have no wish to upset anyone, I guess I'm nerdy enough to enjoy arguing this stuff when I strongly believe in it. Hope you have fun playing it your way, like I said I will do one way or the other as long as players agree.

I'm interested to see what an FAQ says on this when it comes out though!

 Meade wrote:

Luide wrote:
It's not in the rules for buildings, it's Page 105: "The gun emplacement can be shot at". There is the permission to fire at gun emplacement. Nowhere in the battlement rules does it say that "gun emplacement on battlement can NOT be shot at" and therefore, it can be shot.

Fact that there is separate permission to shoot at Units that are on battlements is irrelevant.

It's not in the rules for buildings. Exactly. There is nowhere in the rules where it gives permission to place, or shoot at, a piece of battlefield debris on a battlement.

Why should it be in the buildings section? 40k is full of rules that are used elsewhere. There are no rules for making Morale checks in Shooting Phase section of rulebook, does that mean I don't need to take Morale checks then?

And I don't need spesific permission to shoot at Gun Emplacement on battlement no more than I need spesific permission to shoot at Gun Emplacement in cover. I already have permission to shoot at Gun Emplament anywhere. This includes on battlement, in cover, out of cover etc. Obviously normal shooting restrictions apply.

You're making the same "no permission to do X unless spesific permission is given, even if general permission to do it exists" strawman others have done. Using same logic I could say that: "There is no rule in Monstrous Creatures (page 48) that allows you to shoot at them, therefore you can't. "
I have shown you I have general permission to shoot at Gun Emplacements. Now it is your job to find a rule that explicitly disallows me from shooting at Gun Emplacent that is on battlement.

 Meade wrote:
. It does say 'gun emplacement' is the upgrade but as this language is interchangeable with 'weapon emplacement',

Gun emplacement' is not 'Emplaced weapon'. They are two, completely separate rules constructs that have nothing to do with each other (see page 96 for 'Emplaced Weapons' and page 105 for 'Gun Emplacements). Except that GW made them have similar sounding names, which was bad decision.
They're no more interchangeable than Blood Angel and Dark Angel are. I mean, both have Angel in their name.