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.

Where does it say where you have to place the Aegis gun emplacement? I thought that it had to be in base to base, but then I remembered that was in the NOVA FAQ and that no where in the book or FAQ does it say that it has to be in BTB with the aegis. It even shows it not touching in the example picture.

So does anyone have an idea?

There are no requirements for where the purchased gun is placed, so you use the normal fortification restriction. Which is anywhere in your table half.

3" away from other terrain.

Given that they are placed before other Terrain there can't be any Terrain to remain 3" away from.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that they are placed before other Terrain there can't be any Terrain to remain 3" away from.

is that the same for the aegis defense line too?

I do belive that you must have at least one other ADL piece touching any one you place however.

In teory you could set them up like this

-- -- --

as opposed to

------

But thats from memory so someone else may want to check.

That got FAQd. The ADL sections must form an unbroken line. However the Quad gun is not an ADL section and therefore is only subject to normal fortification placement rules, a bit like a squad and its dedicated transport, I suppose.

Thats kind of silly but eh, there you have it. The Imperium being tyrants again.

"You must set up your fortifications according to Imperial doctrine!"

and you know what happens when you dont follow imperial doctrine. "HERETIC!" and then the commisar executes you.

The gun is purchased as an addition to (as an upgrade) the rest of the otherwise bare ADL, not added to your list as a separate piece.

I would say that makes it a part of the ADL and must be a part of the unbroken line.

Rorschach9 wrote:
The gun is purchased as an addition to (as an upgrade) the rest of the otherwise bare ADL, not added to your list as a separate piece.

I would say that makes it a part of the ADL and must be a part of the unbroken line.

So the picture in the book is incorrect?

 Kevin949 wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
The gun is purchased as an addition to (as an upgrade) the rest of the otherwise bare ADL, not added to your list as a separate piece.

I would say that makes it a part of the ADL and must be a part of the unbroken line.

So the picture in the book is incorrect?

Picture in a book =\= rules. If it was I could take 4 Heavy Destroyers in a Squad.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
The gun is purchased as an addition to (as an upgrade) the rest of the otherwise bare ADL, not added to your list as a separate piece.

I would say that makes it a part of the ADL and must be a part of the unbroken line.

So the picture in the book is incorrect?

Picture in a book =\= rules. If it was I could take 4 Heavy Destroyers in a Squad.

^ This.

Pictures are generally (industry wide, and especially noticable on board game boxes, but I digress) made by photographers to "Look good", not to accurately represent rules, especially when used in published works (including rule books themselves).

** With the exception of pictures that are being SPECIFICALLY REFERED TO for rules clarifications (Such as, for example, the pictures about movement and arcs of fire). Any other pictures are (in general) just to make the books look pretty.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
The gun is purchased as an addition to (as an upgrade) the rest of the otherwise bare ADL, not added to your list as a separate piece.

I would say that makes it a part of the ADL and must be a part of the unbroken line.

So the picture in the book is incorrect?

Picture in a book =\= rules. If it was I could take 4 Heavy Destroyers in a Squad.

^ This.

Pictures are generally (industry wide, and especially noticable on board game boxes, but I digress) made by photographers to "Look good", not to accurately represent rules, especially when used in published works (including rule books themselves).

** With the exception of pictures that are being SPECIFICALLY REFERED TO for rules clarifications (Such as, for example, the pictures about movement and arcs of fire). Any other pictures are (in general) just to make the books look pretty.

Well first off, the picture you're talking about is a random picture in the necron book that has nothing to do with anything OTHER than to look "cool".

Secondly, generally the pictures in the rulebook that are directly linked to a model or rule are usually trying to represent said model/rule. (and if you check the FAQ, they reference page 114 as being an example)

Lastly, though I can't find it at the moment, I could have sworn I saw something stating that gun emplacements received a 4+ cover behind an ADL.

I'm not sure who you're referencing when talking about the picture in the necron book (as i am not talking about any specific picture myself).

Only pictures that are directly referenced can be taken as representative (ie : movement and firing arc pictures referenced in the BRB). Anything that is not directly referenced is *most likely* just a picture showing something (often whatever is being talked about on that page) in a position or layout that the photographer thought looked good, not necessarily representative of a rule.

In other words, pictures cannot really be taken as RULES (or representative of rules) unless *specifically referenced* in the written rules.

** Edit : The 4+ is for a model in cover behind a gun emplacement (Page 105, BRB - Gun Emplacements)

 Kevin949 wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
The gun is purchased as an addition to (as an upgrade) the rest of the otherwise bare ADL, not added to your list as a separate piece.

I would say that makes it a part of the ADL and must be a part of the unbroken line.

So the picture in the book is incorrect?

Picture in a book =\= rules. If it was I could take 4 Heavy Destroyers in a Squad.

^ This.

Pictures are generally (industry wide, and especially noticable on board game boxes, but I digress) made by photographers to "Look good", not to accurately represent rules, especially when used in published works (including rule books themselves).

** With the exception of pictures that are being SPECIFICALLY REFERED TO for rules clarifications (Such as, for example, the pictures about movement and arcs of fire). Any other pictures are (in general) just to make the books look pretty.

Well first off, the picture you're talking about is a random picture in the necron book that has nothing to do with anything OTHER than to look "cool".

Secondly, generally the pictures in the rulebook that are directly linked to a model or rule are usually trying to represent said model/rule. (and if you check the FAQ, they reference page 114 as being an example)

Lastly, though I can't find it at the moment, I could have sworn I saw something stating that gun emplacements received a 4+ cover behind an ADL.

So then do I get the 10 man tactical squad in the picture for free or can I only buy an ADL when I have a 10man tactical squad?

Rorschach9 wrote:
I'm not sure who you're referencing when talking about the picture in the necron book (as i am not talking about any specific picture myself).

Only pictures that are directly referenced can be taken as representative (ie : movement and firing arc pictures referenced in the BRB). Anything that is not directly referenced is *most likely* just a picture showing something (often whatever is being talked about on that page) in a position or layout that the photographer thought looked good, not necessarily representative of a rule.

In other words, pictures cannot really be taken as RULES (or representative of rules) unless *specifically referenced* in the written rules.

** Edit : The 4+ is for a model in cover behind a gun emplacement (Page 105, BRB - Gun Emplacements)

I was responding to you and necronlord3 I was just too lazy to multiquote.

Ya, I agree with this.

Ya, I agree with this too, but it IS referenced as an example in the BRB faq. Leading one to believe that it obviously can't be the only one, but it's currently the only one in question.

No, that's not what I was thinking of, thanks though.

Aegis Defense Line :

Composition: Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegisdefence line sections. Eachsectionof Aegisdefenceline must be laced in base contact with at least one other section.

Options:
• Add one of the following: (Comms relay, quad gun, lascannon)

I would take from that that ADDING a gun to your ADL is adding to the line, not taking a separate model to the table.

My opinion of course and your mileage may vary.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
So then do I get the 10 man tactical squad in the picture for free or can I only buy an ADL when I have a 10man tactical squad?

Now you're just being difficult to be difficult.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Ya, I agree with this too, but it IS referenced as an example in the BRB faq. Leading one to believe that it obviously can't be the only one, but it's currently the only one in question.

Are you refering to the official GW BRB Faq (bolded)?

Q: Can you deploy the Aegis Defence Line sections in two or more groups of two or more sections apiece (this way, they will still be in base contact with at least one other section)? (p114)
A: No – the Aegis defence line sections must be deployed in an unbroken chain, though they can be connected end-to end such as in the example shown on page 114.

Q: Can you shoot at a gun emplacement attached to an Aegis defence line? (p114)
A: Yes – see page 105 for a gun emplacement’s profile.

I can see how that picture would be confusing if you take it as is. I would contend that the picture was (obviously) taken prior to the FAQ ruling however and never meant to be specifically referenced as a ruling in it's setup, especially taking into account htat a gun emplacement is "attached to" an ADL (in the next question at any rate).

What I would like to know is if the gun is part of the line, does it have or give the 4+ cover save to units behind it. There have been some situations where I want to have the gun as part of the line and not behind it but I want it to keep the 4+ cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
So then do I get the 10 man tactical squad in the picture for free or can I only buy an ADL when I have a 10man tactical squad?

Now you're just being difficult to be difficult.

Just following your logic.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
What I would like to know is if the gun is part of the line, does it have or give the 4+ cover save to units behind it. There have been some situations where I want to have the gun as part of the line and not behind it but I want it to keep the 4+ cover save.

As I read it and play it;

The gun is part of the line and does provide a 4+ cover save to any model in cover behind it.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
What I would like to know is if the gun is part of the line, does it have or give the 4+ cover save to units behind it. There have been some situations where I want to have the gun as part of the line and not behind it but I want it to keep the 4+ cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
So then do I get the 10 man tactical squad in the picture for free or can I only buy an ADL when I have a 10man tactical squad?

Now you're just being difficult to be difficult.

Just following your logic.

No you weren't. But it doesn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Ya, I agree with this too, but it IS referenced as an example in the BRB faq. Leading one to believe that it obviously can't be the only one, but it's currently the only one in question.

Are you refering to the official GW BRB Faq (bolded)?

Q: Can you deploy the Aegis Defence Line sections in two or more groups of two or more sections apiece (this way, they will still be in base contact with at least one other section)? (p114)
A: No – the Aegis defence line sections must be deployed in an unbroken chain, though they can be connected end-to end such as in the example shown on page 114.

Q: Can you shoot at a gun emplacement attached to an Aegis defence line? (p114)
A: Yes – see page 105 for a gun emplacement’s profile.

I can see how that picture would be confusing if you take it as is. I would contend that the picture was (obviously) taken prior to the FAQ ruling however and never meant to be specifically referenced as a ruling in it's setup, especially taking into account htat a gun emplacement is "attached to" an ADL (in the next question at any rate).

Yes, that's the one. I disagree with your statement about the picture taken prior to the FAQ however, while the timing is true it is still a clarification of a question and the answer refers you to an already existing example, had they created a new example then sure. But the answer to the question implies they took the picture specifically as an example of the fortification layout (obviously the marines in that pic, the flyer in the pic for the skyshield, and so on are just there for reference/looks)

I did however notice the second question you posted in the FAQ earlier. However as the composition of the line just states it has to be in base contact with another section, you can just put the gun right up against any piece but still behind it. As it appears in the picture, it looks as if the gun is butt-up against the back wall.

We agree to disagree then. I still contend (and will continue to until GW says otherwise, and even then I would play it as is) that the gun must be a part of the ADL as it is taken as an upgrade and not as a separate unit/model.

Rorschach9 wrote:
We agree to disagree then. I still contend (and will continue to until GW says otherwise, and even then I would play it as is) that the gun must be a part of the ADL as it is taken as an upgrade and not as a separate unit/model.

See edit above.

I did however notice the second question you posted in the FAQ earlier. However as the composition of the line just states it has to be in base contact with another section, you can just put the gun right up against any piece but still behind it. As it appears in the picture, it looks as if the gun is butt-up against the back wall.

Ah, but people are contending that you can put the "Added gun emplacement" anywhere on the table, not as a part of the ADL. I am not arguing that you cannot place it against, yet still behind (or in front of) the line, but rather that it cannot be placed "wherever you want" on the table. It is part of the ADL as an upgrade, not an independant piece.

If it is or is not against the back wall in that picture is not 100% clear, but I would agree that it does look as if it is (taking into account the angled section of the wall coming in about half way across the back of the gun base).

Rorschach9 wrote:

I did however notice the second question you posted in the FAQ earlier. However as the composition of the line just states it has to be in base contact with another section, you can just put the gun right up against any piece but still behind it. As it appears in the picture, it looks as if the gun is butt-up against the back wall.

Ah, but people are contending that you can put the "Added gun emplacement" anywhere on the table, not as a part of the ADL. I am not arguing that you cannot place it against, yet still behind (or in front of) the line, but rather that it cannot be placed "wherever you want" on the table. It is part of the ADL as an upgrade, not an independant piece.

If it is or is not against the back wall in that picture is not 100% clear, but I would agree that it does look as if it is (taking into account the angled section of the wall coming in about half way across the back of the gun base).

Well honestly I thought you could put it anywhere as well (I've only taken the ADL+Gun one time), though I don't believe I was trying to make an argument as such earlier in this thread, but after re-reading everything I now understand the placement rules for it better. However, I do not believe, as some have stated, that is has to be "in the line" with the wall.

Yes, the picture isn't that clear about whether it is or not but you should be able to fairly judge distance using the marines as a guide, sort of. It's safest to say that it is though, it does appear to be. Though going by their rules, it would "have" to be.

Well, "in the line" can be interpreted many ways tbh.

Essentially, all pieces of the ADL (including upgrades : ie, gun emplacement/comms relay) must be touching one other piece of the ADL to form an "unbroken line". You could, if you really wanted to, place all the pieces back to back to form a big block and they would still fall within the rules. But you'd have one really thick wall that is only one section long and that would just be rediculous.

I think the most reasonable way of interpreting it is "Make sure each piece touches another piece" but you can form it in any shape you want (Encircled round or square, a straight line, zig-zagging, etc) as long as they all touch another piece.

And the closer I look at that picture (for those who want to take a picture as a ruling) it is definately touching that back section of the line (the right half of the gun base is on the portion of the ADL that comes in). Draw a lin from the innermost base of the visible ADL to the backside of the gun base and it becomes apparent.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Well, "in the line" can be interpreted many ways tbh.

Essentially, all pieces of the ADL (including upgrades : ie, gun emplacement/comms relay) must be touching one other piece of the ADL to form an "unbroken line". You could, if you really wanted to, place all the pieces back to back to form a big block and they would still fall within the rules. But you'd have one really thick wall that is only one section long and that would just be rediculous.

I think the most reasonable way of interpreting it is "Make sure each piece touches another piece" but you can form it in any shape you want (Encircled round or square, a straight line, zig-zagging, etc) as long as they all touch another piece.

And the closer I look at that picture (for those who want to take a picture as a ruling) it is definately touching that back section of the line (the right half of the gun base is on the portion of the ADL that comes in). Draw a lin from the innermost base of the visible ADL to the backside of the gun base and it becomes apparent.

Hah, you described the same absurd thing I was thinking earlier (stacking the walls). But yes, I suppose it could be interpreted many ways. And realistically, all those ways would be correct, as you said, so long as they touched.

I just think that some people were thinking you had to actually replace a section of the wall for the gun emplacement (that's how I interpreted what others were saying, at least, which is why I initially disagreed). Not specifically replace as in remove, but just place the wall section somewhere else and put the gun where it used to be. That make sense? Yes it's still viable, of course, but I think some people thought it HAD to be that way.

RAI - have the gun emplacement touching the ADL. Maybe inside shape or near <2"

RAW - this seems a lot like some of the old discussions about Necron Warriors being brought back by the Ghost Ark or Scarabs from spiders popping up on the other side of the table. There was an argument to be made for it, but it was pretty silly. Still is here

none of this answered my question does an aegis defense line need to stay away from terrain?