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.

Does anyone follow specifics for an undocumented ruling on where you can and cant place your Quad Gun or Comms relay when taken with an Aegis?
Does it have to be attached to the Aegis or within a certain distance?

This came up a tournament I played this past weekend. I had always played that the gun had to maintain coherency with the ADL, but my opponent said "show me where it says that. Show me where it says I can't place it anywhere I want"

After looking online a bit, and through the rulebook we didn't find ANY ruling as to where you can or can't place the quad gun, and so he was allowed to put it up in the forth level of a ruin in his deployment zone. Seemed a bit rediculous to me...

Cheesedoodler wrote:
This came up a tournament I played this past weekend. I had always played that the gun had to maintain coherency with the ADL, but my opponent said "show me where it says that. Show me where it says I can't place it anywhere I want"

After looking online a bit, and through the rulebook we didn't find ANY ruling as to where you can or can't place the quad gun, and so he was allowed to put it up in the forth level of a ruin in his deployment zone. Seemed a bit rediculous to me...

Did he actually say that? That's someone who gets a 0 for sportsmanship.

Had the same thing happen to me a couple months back. Seems like it (and the comms relay) should be 'part of' the ADL.

Im in agreement, its an add-on/attachement to the Aegis, not a seperate piece of terrainotherwise it would be listed independantly.

Although I was hopful against this because in some cases it would fit what Im trying to do to place the Aegis far up the board with the comms relay in my backfield so I could ensure I had a model within 2 inches beginning of turn 2.

But I also see how stupid demanding to do this would be.

The rules currently suggest that any add-on is exactly that "An Add-on" and should be placed within proximity of the Aegis.

I guess anything more would be bending rules to your benefit but it still wouldnt prevent this coming up in games and I'm sure there are some that find it advantageous to do so.

Sounds like something for the next FAQ.

I've never found anything that suggest it must be contiguous with the ADL. It's been ruled that it doesn't in my area. I use it as a way to essentially extend the ADL.

However, you probably should, but that's GW's fault not mine.

I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag

 Stoffer wrote:
I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag

So if you follow the rules as written, you're a complete douchebag?

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:
I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag

So if you follow the rules as written, you're a complete douchebag?

It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.

 Stoffer wrote:


It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.

Except it doesn't specifically tell you to maintain coherency. That's why this thread exists.

 Stoffer wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:
I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag

So if you follow the rules as written, you're a complete douchebag?

It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.

Point me a page number where it tells you to maintain coherency. Or even where it refers to it as an upgrade to the defense line.

Calling someone a douchebag for disagreeing with your baseless rule-assumption is pretty inappropriate. Kinda seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:


It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.

Except it doesn't specifically tell you to maintain coherency. That's why this thread exists.

"Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defense line sections. Each section of the Aegis defense line must be placed in base to base contact with at least one other section". We all have different views on what competitive environment we want I guess.

 Stoffer wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:


It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.

Except it doesn't specifically tell you to maintain coherency. That's why this thread exists.

"Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defense line sections. Each section of the Aegis defense line must be placed in base to base contact with at least one other section". We all have different views on what competitive environment we want I guess.

Yeah. The sections of the Aegis Line have to be touching. That doesn't prove anything.

It says add a Gun Emplacement Quadcannon for 50 points.

Hell, even the picture doesn't have the Quadgun touching.

Rules as written, you pay 50 points to buy up to 8 Aegis sections, and pay 50 more to add in a Gun emplacement. There are no restrictions on placement. Thus it is placed like any other purchased gun emplacement. ie. Wherever you want.

Coherency is for units. The Aegis line isn't a unit.

I'm staggered at the assumptions some users make. If a rule isn't clear, take it to YMDC. Furthermore, if it isn't clear, don't speak as if it's cut and dry. You will 100% guaranteed start an argument. If you disagree with the common ruling, that too will start an argument.

But here, you are disagreeing with a clear lack of restriction on placement. There is no dispute. There is no lack of clarity. You are disagreeing with fact.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:
I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag

So if you follow the rules as written, you're a complete douchebag?

It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.

Point me a page number where it tells you to maintain coherency. Or even where it refers to it as an upgrade to the defense line.

Calling someone a douchebag for disagreeing with your baseless rule-assumption is pretty inappropriate. Kinda seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

I was talking about general tournament behavior, where we clearly have some different wishes for how people treat each other and what kind of environment we want to play games in. As for the 2nd part, I feel that's a bit out of line vOv

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.

I'm sure there are other examples that was just the first one to come to my mind.

I wouldn't get all poopie pants if someone wanted to split the gun onto the other boardside if they so truly wished.

Also, tournement show me or I'm not following what you "think" it should do.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:


It's an upgrade to something that specifically tells you to maintain coherency. If you try to rule lawyer your way out of that I pretty much consider you a douchebag, yeah.

Except it doesn't specifically tell you to maintain coherency. That's why this thread exists.

"Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defense line sections. Each section of the Aegis defense line must be placed in base to base contact with at least one other section". We all have different views on what competitive environment we want I guess.

Yeah. The sections of the Aegis Line have to be touching. That doesn't prove anything.

It says add a Gun Emplacement Quadcannon for 50 points.

Hell, even the picture doesn't have the Quadgun touching.

Rules as written, you pay 50 points to buy up to 8 Aegis sections, and pay 50 more to add in a Gun emplacement. There are no restrictions on placement. Thus it is placed like any other purchased gun emplacement. ie. Wherever you want.

Coherency is for units. The Aegis line isn't a unit.

It's an option just like you'll get options to units in any other codex. I'm not sure why you'd treat this profile any differently? It's a unit you buy that has a certain set of upgrade. You even sait it yourself "add" is the key word, you're adding it to the unit. Again, play it as you like, I'm lucky enugh to not really have many of these arguments in the tourmanets played in my area.

 Stoffer wrote:


I was talking about general tournament behavior, where we clearly have some different wishes for how people treat each other and what kind of environment we want to play games in. As for the 2nd part, I feel that's a bit out of line vOv

Following rules as written is the best form of tournament behavior, because it avoids interpretation-based rules disputes.

The second part was my defense to being called a douchebag for how I place one of my plastic toys in relation to another of my plastic toys.

Kindof seems like a bold thing to call someone for such a simple action, don't you think?

 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.

I'm sure there are other examples that was just the first one to come to my mind.

I wouldn't get all poopie pants if someone wanted to split the gun onto the other boardside if they so truly wished.

Also, tournement show me or I'm not following what you "think" it should do.

Henchman and inquisitor are different unit profiles, this isn't.

 Stoffer wrote:

 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.

I'm sure there are other examples that was just the first one to come to my mind.

I wouldn't get all poopie pants if someone wanted to split the gun onto the other boardside if they so truly wished.

Also, tournement show me or I'm not following what you "think" it should do.

Henchman and inquisitor are different unit profiles, this isn't.

The Aegis Defense line isn't a unit.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:


I was talking about general tournament behavior, where we clearly have some different wishes for how people treat each other and what kind of environment we want to play games in. As for the 2nd part, I feel that's a bit out of line vOv

Following rules as written is the best form of tournament behavior, because it avoids interpretation-based rules disputes.

The second part was my defense to being called a douchebag for how I place one of my plastic toys in relation to another of my plastic toys.

Kindof seems like a bold thing to call someone for such a simple action, don't you think?

I'm not sure how you think that was pointed as you. I made the post before you were even in the thread? There was a discussion about another player earlier which is what my post was about.

Exactly, its like saying I am going to purchase a marine with plasma cannon and put the plasma cannon elsewhere.

MarkyMark wrote:
Exactly, its like saying I am going to purchase a marine with plasma cannon and put the plasma cannon elsewhere.

Well no it's not. That's a horrible example and you know it.

Stoffer wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:


I was talking about general tournament behavior, where we clearly have some different wishes for how people treat each other and what kind of environment we want to play games in. As for the 2nd part, I feel that's a bit out of line vOv

Following rules as written is the best form of tournament behavior, because it avoids interpretation-based rules disputes.

The second part was my defense to being called a douchebag for how I place one of my plastic toys in relation to another of my plastic toys.

Kindof seems like a bold thing to call someone for such a simple action, don't you think?

I'm not sure how you think that was pointed as you. I made the post before you were even in the thread? There was a discussion about another player earlier which is what my post was about.

Hmm.

Stoffer wrote:I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag

Sounds aimed at everyone who doesn't place their purchased terrain in contact with their ADL's.

I put my Quad gun at least 3 inches away from my ADL every time. All the time. So does everyone at my LGS.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkyMark wrote:
Exactly, its like saying I am going to purchase a marine with plasma cannon and put the plasma cannon elsewhere.

If :
>a plasma cannon was a terrain piece
>it didn't say "One MARINE can take"
>a marine unit wasn't a unit
>A marine unit taking said plasma cannon was a fortification

Then your comparison would be relevant.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Stoffer wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Stoffer wrote:


I was talking about general tournament behavior, where we clearly have some different wishes for how people treat each other and what kind of environment we want to play games in. As for the 2nd part, I feel that's a bit out of line vOv

Following rules as written is the best form of tournament behavior, because it avoids interpretation-based rules disputes.

The second part was my defense to being called a douchebag for how I place one of my plastic toys in relation to another of my plastic toys.

Kindof seems like a bold thing to call someone for such a simple action, don't you think?

I'm not sure how you think that was pointed as you. I made the post before you were even in the thread? There was a discussion about another player earlier which is what my post was about.

Hmm.

Stoffer wrote:I place it in contact with the ADL because I'm not a complete douchebag

Sounds aimed at everyone who doesn't place their purchased terrain in contact with their ADL's.

I put my Quad gun at least 3 inches away from my ADL every time. All the time. So does everyone at my LGS.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkyMark wrote:
Exactly, its like saying I am going to purchase a marine with plasma cannon and put the plasma cannon elsewhere.

If :
>a plasma cannon was a terrain piece
>it didn't say "One MARINE can take"
>a marine unit wasn't a unit
>A marine unit taking said plasma cannon was a fortification

Then your comparison would be relevant.

Hey listen, we have different opinions on this. I think if you buy an upgrade to your ADL, place the ADL on the ground and your quad gun on the 4th level of a ruin (which was the example above), you're about as unsportsmanlike as it gets. You're welcome to disagree all you want

The picture in the book is a horrible angle. That being said, this has come up before. For the Bastion, it clearly can be placed elsewhere per the photo. However, all else being said, I generally put it behind my adl, (which is as cramped as possible) so it can benefit from a cover save after I've posed off my opponent wrecking his flyer the moment it comes in.

For an Update on our tournament shenanigans (guy puts the quad gun up on the roof of a ruin) the TO has announced that for all future games at our FLGS the quad gun can be placed no further than 1" from the ADL.

My question is now answered, and I can't believe what the waac types think... "Tell me where it says I can't put in the roof of a building on the other side of the map." Seriously?

I know that YMDC is strictly a "RAW" forum, but I would truly hate to play games with a good number of the posters here...

40k Priorities:
1) Fun
2) Socializing
|
|
|
|
DISTANT GULF
|
|
|
|
3) winning.

Cheesedoodler wrote:
I know that YMDC is strictly a "RAW" forum, but I would truly hate to play games with a good number of the posters here...

Honestly, most people don't play strict RAW or even the position htey argue from. I argued against Abbadon joining marked units, I had no problem with him doing so. I've argued that Wraithguard cannot shoot or assault, not letting them do it is just silly. I'll argue that a blast weapon cannot allocate wounds to unit completely out of sight from the firing unit, but (afaik) nobody plays it that way. I think there are only a few WaaC players who actually hang out here. Most of us are trying to learn the rules properly so we can make a good (read fair) call mid-game without having to resort to that stupid TMIR.

Cheesedoodler wrote:
I know that YMDC is strictly a "RAW" forum, but I would truly hate to play games with a good number of the posters here...

Then you're falling into the classic failure of assuming that everyone here argues the way they play.
That's demonstrably untrue in many cases. I would venture a guess that 95% of the "good number" of posters you would hate to play a game against are very close to your silly chart.

 Happyjew wrote:
I'll argue that a blast weapon cannot allocate wounds to unit completely out of sight from the firing unit

Off-topic, but you're completely wrong. BRB p33, "Blast & Large Blast," last sentence of middle column. Be a better reader.

Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I'll argue that a blast weapon cannot allocate wounds to unit completely out of sight from the firing unit

Off-topic, but you're completely wrong. BRB p33, "Blast & Large Blast," last sentence of middle column. Be a better reader.

Instead of insulting someone, maybe think about how nothing on page 33 overrides page 16's Out of Sight rule.
Page 33 allows you to wound the unit - populate the wound pool. Cite permission to allocate wounds.

Or don't - at least not in this thread. Open a new one if you want to disagree and I'll debate you.