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 re-reading over the rules of various Fortification (Yes I know they are poorly written with holes) I was wondering about the deployment of the ADL.

The ADL composition rules call out that the 4 large and small segments have to be in base contact with each other and the FAQ states that it has to form 1 continual chain. However, does the Comms Relay, Quad Gun, or Icarus Lascannon HAVE to be in base contact as well? The image in the BRB shows it not in base contact and the composition only says "sections" and doesn't refer to the 3 possible upgrade options.

So with that said, can I take an ADL with Quad gun but deploy them completely separate from each other? Obviously the Quad Gun loses the ADL cover save and would follow the rules for general gun emplacements but could I deploy the ADL on one side of my table half and then the quad gun elsewhere?

Nobody knows.

The image in the book is actually a little unclear. Some have argued that the gun in the rulebook pic is actually touching the wall, it's just not obvious from the angle, but whether or not that counts for anything is a matter of debate.

It's been argue back and forth extensively with no clear consensus. It seems likely that it was intended for the gun or the relay to be placed with the walls, but whether it is supposed to be touching them or just nearby (and how far away that would allow) ... that's just down to guesswork, becaue GW still hasn't bothered to finish writing the rules for their fortifications.

 insaniak wrote:
Nobody knows.

The image in the book is actually a little unclear. Some have argued that the gun in the rulebook pic is actually touching the wall, it's just not obvious from the angle, but whether or not that counts for anything is a matter of debate.

It's been argue back and forth extensively with no clear consensus. It seems likely that it was intended for the gun or the relay to be placed with the walls, but whether it is supposed to be touching them or just nearby (and how far away that would allow) ... that's just down to guesswork, becaue GW still hasn't bothered to finish writing the rules for their fortifications.

Ok I was thinking it fell into one of those types of situations (and as for the picture the Bastion one doesn't help the debate either). Hopefully we'll all rejoice with updated rules and wording when Stronghold Assault comes out tomorrow then. (not likely).

Thanks

The WALL sections are supposed to all be touching. If you look at the deployment example provided in the rulebook, the gun is not touching the wall at any point.
Personally, I think the gun is INTENDED to be deployed "with" the wall so I always keep them together.
As that other guy said though, they have not FAQed that part so there isn't an official answer on it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
If you look at the deployment example provided in the rulebook, the gun is not touching the wall at any point.

That statement is false.

The back panel of the Gun is touching the ADL. (Not that Pictures are rules).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
If you look at the deployment example provided in the rulebook, the gun is not touching the wall at any point.

That statement is false.

The back panel of the Gun is touching the ADL. (Not that Pictures are rules).

Not on pg 114. Do you have another page they are ?

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
If you look at the deployment example provided in the rulebook, the gun is not touching the wall at any point.

That statement is false.

The back panel of the Gun is touching the ADL. (Not that Pictures are rules).

Not on pg 114. Do you have another page they are ?

Yes on page 114, the back plate of the gun is touching that back wall of the ADL.

The Back right corner of the Gun touches the low part of the wall. The low part of the ADL is closer than the tall parts because of how the ADL is made.

The picture does not show that. You may think it touches but there is no proof.

It's irrelevant either way, since the picture isn't shown as how the thing has to be deployed. It's just a picture of what the ADL looks like.

Fragile wrote:
The picture does not show that. You may think it touches but there is no proof.

and there is no proof that it is not touching, and as Insaniak says it's irrelevant either way.

The Pic is not rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
and there is no proof that it is not touching

This has nothing to do with rules, you claimed a statement was false and back it up with ^. That is what is called an epic failure.

RAW: you don't need to have it touching
RAI: it should be touching

or something like that...

Just recently had this pointed out in a game and dunno if its been addressed or argued but.

The book states that each section must be placed in base contact with at least 1 other piece

wouldn't that allow you to place these things all over the place so long as it was in pairs?

Also ADL have no base (though im saying this jokingly)

Edit: V MK better let that player know than.

 Desubot wrote:
The book states that each section must be placed in base contact with at least 1 other piece

wouldn't that allow you to place these things all over the place so long as it was in pairs?

No. See the rulebook FAQ - the wording was changed.

Also ADL have no base (though im saying this jokingly)

Any wall has a base.

I'll look when I get back home. I was going by the one shown in the little rulebook thst comes with the starter set. It showed a space between them. Could be a spot of it is touching.Hard for me to see the stuff in it without reading glasses.

Note that the picture is not the rules of how it has to be deployed. It is an example of a possible deployment within the rules.

 EVIL INC wrote:
It is an example of a possible deployment within the rules.

No, it isn't. It's a picture showing what the ADL looks like, nothing more.

so your saying they show illegal deployments for units while trying to teach new players how to play the game. I never saw where they announced you could not actually deploy it like that in a game.
Their show, not how I would do it. We have all definitely seen them do worse. lol

Looking at the front of the gun, it is well away from the from of the wall as are both sides. You might notice that both sides are "square with the wall (looks that way to me anyway). If you look at the back left corner of the base of the gun, it appears to be a good inch away from the back wall (farther than the tiny extension would reach). This is a judgement call because as we can physically see that point as it is not in the picture, it may or may not actually be touching the wall in the rear. I am of a mind that it doesn't but my depth perception may be off.

 EVIL INC wrote:
so your saying they show illegal deployments for units while trying to teach new players how to play the game.

GW rulebooks and codexes have had illegal units pictured in them for 20 years now. It shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone by this point.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
and there is no proof that it is not touching

This has nothing to do with rules, you claimed a statement was false and back it up with ^. That is what is called an epic failure.

It was false, because it is touching, there is a pic in a previous thread that shows the lines and where the gun touches.

This is true.
On that particular set up of the wall that they have in the picture, what is illegal about it? I often use an ADL and usually havit either I a long end to end line or I a shorter line with branches. but I'm just not seeing what is illegal about that particular picture. I don't think the gun has to be in contact with the wall and all sections of the wall are touching another wall section at the "bases".

You were the one who brought up the legality of it, so you tell me.

My point was simply that the picture just shows what the ADL looks like. It is not an indication of legal setup.

Can a Land Raider's lascannon be deployed separately from a Land Raider?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
and there is no proof that it is not touching

This has nothing to do with rules, you claimed a statement was false and back it up with ^. That is what is called an epic failure.

It was false, because it is touching, there is a pic in a previous thread that shows the lines and where the gun touches.

You cannot determine from that picture whether it is touching or not, your simply refusing to admit your wrong.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Can a Land Raider's lascannon be deployed separately from a Land Raider?

When the land raider is fully assembled, is the lascannon a completely separate, unattached model in its own right?

Yes, if you dont glue the sponson to the hull.

(Not using the rulebook definition of "model", of course, as the quadgun is not one)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, if you dont glue the sponson to the hull.

Then it isn't fully assembled. Fully assembling a Land Raider includes mounting the sponson in the appropriate place, and you aren't allowed to modify the model by removing the sponson and placing it somewhere else in the middle of the game.

Do you have a rule for that? Or how about a leman russ - where sponsons are optional upgrades - what rule states they must be attached?

The one that results in you not having many opponents if you try to deploy your sponsons as separate models.



Seriously, RAW is awesome and all, but sometimes these arguments just get too silly for words.

Indeed -but so does claiming you can place the Quadgun anywhere you like, but not a sponson, "because"

Place it in base contact. Not a single person I have ever met using one, or playing against one, thinks you can place the gun anywhere you like

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Indeed -but so does claiming you can place the Quadgun anywhere you like, but not a sponson, "because"

'Because' has never been the argument. The difference between a sponson and a quad gun should be fairly self evident from a cursory look at the models in question.

Place it in base contact. Not a single person I have ever met using one, or playing against one, thinks you can place the gun anywhere you like

From my experience, most steer away from the 'anywhere' approach as much because they know that their opponent is likely to disapprove... The general approach seems to be either base contact or within 2" or so.