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.

DeathReaper wrote:

Gloomfang wrote:No it does not have to be the same. It has to follow the same rules and have the same measurements (base size, hight and width).

The placement and location of the weapons and fire points are all a part of the blueprint measurements of the building

And I would totaly agree if it did not have the "typically one on each facing." added in to it.

But we are WAY off topic.

So back to the question at hand: Gun Emplacements

Did you agree with the following points at least?

1) A Fortification is defined as single choice from the Fortification section of the BRB (this includes options).
2) Fortifications are terrain. The type of terrain they are are defined in the entry listing.
3) A single Fortification choice can consist of many seperate pieces of terrain (For example a FoR is 4 pieces of terrain). They still count as a single Fortification.
4) Composition defines how peices of terrain must be deploied.
5) Weapons state what Emplaced Weapons the Fortification starts with and thier location.
6) Options state what modifications and additional peices of terrain can be bought to go with your basic Fortification choice. This defines points, type and location.

And

B) That a can make my FoR with the 2 bunkers in the middle with a long walkway leading to the tower.
D) That when I deploy my Fortification I place it all at once even if it consists of several peices of terrain.

That is about right, noting that on #6:

6) Options state what modifications and additional peices of terrain can be bought to go with your basic Fortification choice. This defines points, type and location.

The options need to go with the fortification.

DeathReaper wrote:That is about right, noting that on #6:

6) Options state what modifications and additional peices of terrain can be bought to go with your basic Fortification choice. This defines points, type and location.

The options need to go with the fortification.

OK so that is our sticking point. We both say that an option is deploied with the rest of the Fortification.

So it boils down to if an optional piece of terrain must be placed on top of anouther peice of terrain. We already know that it can be placed there, just if it must be placed there.

Also what are your thoughts on where the Gun Emplacement has to go with the ADL? Must it touch a piece of the line or can it be set a certain distance appart?

DeathReaper wrote:Same piece, then it must be 1 piece, how are you deploying 1 piece in separate places?

I do not know any opponent that would let me do this, as having the gun far from the bastion is not an Gun Emplacement for that fortification.

yakface wrote:There is also no permission to place it anywhere else.

With the following rules:

Kommissar Kel wrote:BRB Page 114, Fortifications, 3rd Paragraph:

"Composition. This tells you what terrain Pieces the fortification consists of. Most are simply a Large building or weapon, but others consist of several terrain Pieces."

The closest thing to any indication for where it could go is pages 114(Composition; explaining that they can be multiple pieces of terrain) and Page 120(Set up Fortifications; explaining that your fortifications count against the terrain density for the 2'x2' area that the majority of them are within).

So we have that the whole of a fortification counts as 1 terrain piece for Density; and that only separate "Pieces" for density abide by the "Must be 3" apart" rule(again page 120, bullet #3; which tells us a single terrain "Piece" could be up to 3 smaller pieces, and that each counted "Piece" are what abides the 3" limit).

A Fortification can be comprised of several individual terrain pieces, all of those terrain pieces count as a single piece for determining Terrain density and that single piece is located in the 1 2'x2' table area that holds the majority of the Fortification.

If Yak and yourself are correct; where in the rules does it specify that you may have the Terrain piece of "Gun Emplacement" within 3" of the Bastion(also a terrain piece)? Because, uh, Permissive ruleset and all.

Where's the facepalm smiley?

Kommissar Kel wrote:A Fortification can be comprised of several individual terrain pieces, all of those terrain pieces count as a single piece for determining Terrain density and that single piece is located in the 1 2'x2' table area that holds the majority of the Fortification.

If Yak and yourself are correct; where in the rules does it specify that you may have the Terrain piece of "Gun Emplacement" within 3" of the Bastion(also a terrain piece)? Because, uh, Permissive ruleset and all.

That was part of my stipulation for discussion point 3. We are all agreeing that a single Fortification can consist of several pieces of terrain and they are all deployed as a single choice. Otherwise you could not use a FoR as it is 4 seperate peices of terrain and you would have conflicting "can't" and "must".

The much more intresting point to talk about is also in FoR. It is the only Fortification you can actully buy extra "weapons". Under Options it gives very specific instructions as to where you can place those extra purchased HB. So we have an additional point to consider with this: why would they specify where the extra HB could go, but not specify where the Gun Emplacement should go.

The biggest reason is obvious. One is a Gun Emplacement or Comms (a piece of terrain) and the other an Emplaced Weapon. Rules for placing peices of terrain are contained in the Composition section. There was no other place stating where to place Emplaced Weapons.

kcwm wrote:Where's the facepalm smiley?

:facepalm:

Perhaps both could be right.
If the weapon can be purchased as a separate unit.

If not placed as a part of the bastion, it counts as battlefield debris, and thus is a piece of artillery with an independent rule set. p 105

However, if you choose to place the gun on top of the bastion as in the picture in the BRB, p 97, it becomes an emplaced gun. Thus it is a part of the bastion and cannot be targeted separately.

DeathReaper wrote:That is about right, noting that on #6:

6) Options state what modifications and additional peices of terrain can be bought to go with your basic Fortification choice. This defines points, type and location.

The options need to go with the fortification.

What does "go with" mean? Same deployment zone? Terrain-density area? Same country?

If you mean "goes directly on top" then does upgrading a Crusader Squad with neophytes mean that I place the neophytes ON TOP of the mandatory initiates?

seapheonix wrote:Perhaps both could be right.
If the weapon can be purchased as a separate unit.

If not placed as a part of the bastion, it counts as battlefield debris, and thus is a piece of artillery with an independent rule set. p 105

However, if you choose to place the gun on top of the bastion as in the picture in the BRB, p 97, it becomes an emplaced gun. Thus it is a part of the bastion and cannot be targeted separately.

No matter where you place the gun it does not stop being a gun emplacement. Totally diffrent rules and to be emplaced it would have to be in the bastion. And I am pretty sure that you can not embark a peice of terrain.

In the description of the picture on p 97 they call it an emplaced gun. So that would make it an emplaced gun. The example is a bastion, with a gun on the roof, and it is called an emplaced gun. That seems to translate to... it's emplaced.

The Imperial Bastion states that its type of Terrain is a Medium Building. This gives it a maximum of a 9x9 area that the building may be. If you take the upgraded weapon and place it somewhere other than the Bastion, the terrain type would change. It would have to be battlefield Debris for the Gun Emplacements to be set somewhere else. IF you take the 9x9 and place the gun beside the Bastion, then you would be creating effectively area terrain, which it is not. The only way to really work it out is to put it on the building, where RAI I think it should go.

seapheonix wrote:In the description of the picture on p 97 they call it an emplaced gun. So that would make it an emplaced gun. The example is a bastion, with a gun on the roof, and it is called an emplaced gun. That seems to translate to... it's emplaced.

It is emplaced. It is a gun emplacement.

It is a slppy peice of writing though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:The Imperial Bastion states that its type of Terrain is a Medium Building. This gives it a maximum of a 9x9 area that the building may be. If you take the upgraded weapon and place it somewhere other than the Bastion, the terrain type would change. It would have to be battlefield Debris for the Gun Emplacements to be set somewhere else. IF you take the 9x9 and place the gun beside the Bastion, then you would be creating effectively area terrain, which it is not. The only way to really work it out is to put it on the building, where RAI I think it should go.

A Fortification can be made of several peices of terrain. Each piece follows it own rules. Otherwise you could not have a FoR as it is comprised of diffrent sized buildings.
If the intention as that all weapons were to be Emplaced. Then they would call them that and not Gun Emplacements.

How do you play them on top of your bastions? As gun emplacemtents (manually fired units that can be targeted sepratly) or as emplaced weapons (can autofire andcan not be targetted)?

Aye Gloom, but those are spelled out in the Terrain type. The bastion is a medium building, the Fortress is 4 building, etc.. Emplaced weapons are in buildings pg 96, Gun Emplacements are terrain, aka battlefield debris, pg 105. (God I hate GW for naming them so similar). As those weapons are bought as part of an upgrade to the fortification, they would be Emplaced weapons.

Emplaced weapons are part of the building and cannot otherwise be targeted.

Gun Emplacments have a toughness and wounds and can be targeted.

Fragile wrote:Aye Gloom, but those are spelled out in the Terrain type. The bastion is a medium building, the Fortress is 4 building, etc.. Emplaced weapons are in buildings pg 96, Gun Emplacements are terrain, aka battlefield debris, pg 105. (God I hate GW for naming them so similar). As those weapons are bought as part of an upgrade to the fortification, they would be Emplaced weapons.

Emplaced weapons are part of the building and cannot otherwise be targeted.

Gun Emplacments have a toughness and wounds and can be targeted.

Where does it say that? Because the Quad Gun is a Gun Emplacement, according to the Aegis Defense Line.

According to the Imp. Bastion the ILC.QG is also a Gun Emplacement.

If you buy it, and don't put it on the roof, aren't you modeling for an advantage?


-Matt

So the picture of the Imperial Bastion where it has the rules was modeled for advantage since the Comms Relay is not on the roof?

Fragile wrote:Aye Gloom, but those are spelled out in the Terrain type. The bastion is a medium building, the Fortress is 4 building, etc.. Emplaced weapons are in buildings pg 96, Gun Emplacements are terrain, aka battlefield debris, pg 105. (God I hate GW for naming them so similar). As those weapons are bought as part of an upgrade to the fortification, they would be Emplaced weapons.

Emplaced weapons are part of the building and cannot otherwise be targeted.

Gun Emplacments have a toughness and wounds and can be targeted.

If they were Emplaced Weapons then they would not have the Gun Emplacement as the type next to points cost. It would be listed as an Emplaced Weapon like the HB.

And the problem is people keep reffering to the Gun Emplacement as an upgrade. It is not an upgrade (like wargear) it is an option (like adding additional models to a squad.) A Gun Emplacement is a second model you can add to the "unit".

The other thing people keep missing is that a Fortification is not a single peice of terrain (except the landing pad). The rules for Fortifications spell out that a Fortification can be made of several pieces of terrain. The ADL is 8-9 peices of terrain. The FoR is 4 pieces. This does not make them area terrain or anything like that. The rules state this very clearly as well as what terrain rules apply to each terrain piece. The Rules also state that a single Fortification is deploied at one time no matter how many pieces.

The issue boils down to a type of "unit coherency". Does a Fortification have a type of coherency that requires terrain pieces to be deploied within a certain distance of each other piece of terrain. There is a spot called Composition that has the rule for what pieces have to touch. I argue that as that composition section does not have the require the Gun Emplacements or Comms to be placed in contact with other terrain pieces. This Composition section also has lead to issues with the ADL. Some people say as long as 2 pieces are touching it is a leagle (so up to 4 sections placed anywhere on your 1/2 of the board) or if they must be placed as a single line.

FAQ should be out in the next week or so. Not sure if they will clear it up any clearer.

Where in the type of the bastion does it say that the gun is an option similar to adding men to a unit, and not an upgrade like a vehicle? I thought that fortifications were treated very much like vehicles that couldn't move. Thus the basis for fire points, weapon arcs, damage table instead of wounds.

Check out page 89. A war torn battlefield.

"The bastion has an Icarus lascannon on the battlements. In addition to the buildings rules, which can be found on page 92, the players have agreed that whoever controls the battlements can fire the Icarus lascannon using the emplaced weapon rules described in the building rules on page 96."

This gives an example of how a bastion, and its weapon upgrade is supposed to be used. Including page references and rule sets to utilize. Nowhere in that example do they refer to p. 104 where the gun emplacement is separate to the bastion. It is specifically stated as an emplaced gun.

Very significantly, there is also an example of an aegis defence line with a weapon emplacement.

"This set of defence lines has a weapon emplacement. The players have agreed that whoever controls this fortifcation can use the rules for gun emplacements, which can be found in the Battlefield debris section on page 104."

That seems to be a pretty set ruling on how to interact with both ADL and bastion. If you purchase a bastion and upgrade it with a gun on the roof, it is emplaced and cannot be separately targeted. It is a part of the building. ADL does not have an armor value in the same way as a bastion, thus the weapon when purchased is a piece of artillery and counts as a gun emplacement.

Makes a lot of sense to me as to how it would be ruled. The question is will it be a historic swaying of the minds of others on Dakka?

Actually seaphoenix, it specifically says that the players agreed to treat it differently.

seapheonix wrote:Where in the type of the bastion does it say that the gun is an option similar to adding men to a unit, and not an upgrade like a vehicle? I thought that fortifications were treated very much like vehicles that couldn't move. Thus the basis for fire points, weapon arcs, damage table instead of wounds.

Check out page 89. A war torn battlefield.

"The bastion has an Icarus lascannon on the battlements. In addition to the buildings rules, which can be found on page 92, the players have agreed that whoever controls the battlements can fire the Icarus lascannon using the emplaced weapon rules described in the building rules on page 96."
This gives an example of how a bastion, and its weapon upgrade is supposed to be used. Including page references and rule sets to utilize. Nowhere in that example do they refer to p. 104 where the gun emplacement is separate to the bastion. It is specifically stated as an emplaced gun.

Key point here is that the players have agreed to use it as an Emplaced Weapon. Also you are looking at something that is not a Fortification (technicly) as it is a Delapitated Building. It is a piece of terrain that is placed and does not follow normal Fortification rules.

Very significantly, there is also an example of an aegis defence line with a weapon emplacement.

"This set of defence lines has a weapon emplacement. The players have agreed that whoever controls this fortifcation can use the rules for gun emplacements, which can be found in the Battlefield debris section on page 104."

That is an example of a Gun Emplacement as it shows that you use the rules on pg 104. The term "emplaced weapon" is genericly used throughout the book to reffer to both Gun Emplacements and Emplaced Weapons. They are both "Emplaced", but they have diffrent rules.

They really should have given them diffrent names.

That seems to be a pretty set ruling on how to interact with both ADL and bastion. If you purchase a bastion and upgrade it with a gun on the roof, it is emplaced and cannot be separately targeted. It is a part of the building. ADL does not have an armor value in the same way as a bastion, thus the weapon when purchased is a piece of artillery and counts as a gun emplacement.

*sigh*
Can we come up with a better short hand than saying something is "emplaced"? They are both emplacements and it is really mudding the waters.

I would agree with you if:
1) The rules for Dilapitated Buildings and Fortifications were the same. For example the AV is diffrent and the Emplaced weapons do not work.
2) That would mean that the Comms is an Emplaced Weapon as well. How do you Emplace a piece of terrain?
3) The TL ILC and Fragstorm are both Emplaced Weapons. They are called Emplaced Weapons. The additional HB on the FoR are also an option and they are specificly called Emplaced Weapons as well and they actully give you the rules for how to emplace them. If the other options were supposed to be Emplaced Weapons why would they not call the Emplaced Weapons rather than Gun Emplacements. Why do it for 3 and not the other 2?

So by your logic I can start calling my Flyrant a Flyer becasue they talk about how it flies. I can't becasue I would be changing the unit type to using a seperate set of rules. Things are what they are called and unless the rules state otherwise you can't use the rules for something that is simillar jsut becasue you think it makes sense. (Trust me I have no idea why my FMCs do not have Skyfire, but I still can't give it to them.)

pretre wrote:

kcwm wrote:Where's the facepalm smiley?

:facepalm:

You're a good man, I don't care what they say about you. That's what I get for using the quick reply. Never again...ok, except maybe next time.

Can someone who's arguing that it must be placed on top come up with a valid explanation for the Comm Relay example to not be on top?

This example has been mentioned multiple times, but I haven't seen it refuted.

Ok, after a bit of reading, I now agree that the Quad gun/Icarus Lascannon and Comms relay do not have to go with the building for the Bastion. GW uses the term Gun Emplacement, meaning they are set on the battlefield as Debris T7, W2, Sv 3+ items. The difference that was noted here, is that the Fortress has "Emplaced Weapons(heavy bolters) that can be bought. Those would be part of the building (per pg96).

Happyjew wrote:So the picture of the Imperial Bastion where it has the rules was modeled for advantage since the Comms Relay is not on the roof?

Quark wrote:Can someone who's arguing that it must be placed on top come up with a valid explanation for the Comm Relay example to not be on top?

This example has been mentioned multiple times, but I haven't seen it refuted.

Easy -- photographs in the rulebook are not a valid form of rules evidence.

The WHFB rulebook has photos that show units within 1" of each other (illegal placement). The new 40K rulebook has photos that show separate pieces of terrain within 3" of each other (illegal placement, unless you are using Narrative Terrain).

Since Narrative Terrain overrides terrain placement guidelines, that's the only way you could set up a weapon away from the fortification that it's a part of. Otherwise, the gun would be part of the fortification it was purchased for (page 114 "You can take a single fortification for each primary detachment in your force" -- therefore a bastion with a gun is a single fortification, and must be placed with all the parts adjacent to each other, unless specific permission is given to do otherwise, as in the ADL placement rule).

Fragile wrote:Ok, after a bit of reading, I now agree that the Quad gun/Icarus Lascannon and Comms relay do not have to go with the building for the Bastion. GW uses the term Gun Emplacement, meaning they are set on the battlefield as Debris T7, W2, Sv 3+ items. The difference that was noted here, is that the Fortress has "Emplaced Weapons(heavy bolters) that can be bought. Those would be part of the building (per pg96).

Doesn't that mean your opponent could place your Gun Emplacement?

Altruizine wrote:therefore a bastion with a gun is a single fortification, and must be placed with all the parts adjacent to each other, unless specific permission is given to do otherwise, as in the ADL placement rule).

This part - where is the rule that says they must be placed adjacent with eachother? I see the ADL and FoR rules to that effect, but not a general one for all fortifications.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Altruizine wrote:therefore a bastion with a gun is a single fortification, and must be placed with all the parts adjacent to each other, unless specific permission is given to do otherwise, as in the ADL placement rule).

This part - where is the rule that says they must be placed adjacent with eachother? I see the ADL and FoR rules to that effect, but not a general one for all fortifications.

It goes back to everybody's favourite, go-to "permissive ruleset" argument. A Fortification is a single purchase, a single "model", and a single placement. Without a rule explicitly telling you that you can divide the fortification into multiple sections (like what is found in the ADL rules) the only legal assumption is that it must be deployed as one whole piece.

You're effectively asking, "Why can't I place the pieces separately; it doesn't say I can't!" which is always inferior to analyzing what it says you can do.

Altruizine wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Altruizine wrote:therefore a bastion with a gun is a single fortification, and must be placed with all the parts adjacent to each other, unless specific permission is given to do otherwise, as in the ADL placement rule).

This part - where is the rule that says they must be placed adjacent with eachother? I see the ADL and FoR rules to that effect, but not a general one for all fortifications.

It goes back to everybody's favourite, go-to "permissive ruleset" argument. A Fortification is a single purchase, a single "model", and a single placement. Without a rule explicitly telling you that you can divide the fortification into multiple sections (like what is found in the ADL rules) the only legal assumption is that it must be deployed as one whole piece.

You're effectively asking, "Why can't I place the pieces separately; it doesn't say I can't!" which is always inferior to analyzing what it says you can do.

A Fortification is a single purchase, just like a Techmarine and his Servitors. But they can be deployed on opposite sides of the table! The fortification is not a single model, or can you prove it is? And single placement != placed together.

The rule telling you you can divide the fortification into multiple sections is the same rule that allows you to divide a squad up into it's constituent models - neophytes bought for a BT Initiate squad do not have to be placed on top of the initiates, do they?

And it does say I can, because normal fortification placement rules allow me to deploy them separately (by allowing me to deploy them at all with no restrictions). You would have to find a restriction to the fortification placement rules.

"The bastion has an Icarus lascannon on the battlements. In addition to the buildings rules, which can be found on page 92, the players have agreed that whoever controls the battlements can fire the Icarus lascannon using the emplaced weapon rules described in the building rules on page 96."
This gives an example of how a bastion, and its weapon upgrade is supposed to be used. Including page references and rule sets to utilize. Nowhere in that example do they refer to p. 104 where the gun emplacement is separate to the bastion. It is specifically stated as an emplaced gun.

Key point here is that the players have agreed to use it as an Emplaced Weapon. Also you are looking at something that is not a Fortification (technicly) as it is a Delapitated Building. It is a piece of terrain that is placed and does not follow normal Fortification rules.