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:
The Rules actually do that for us.

"units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered and the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" " P. 11

A fortification is not a unit. This rule is irrelevant. And besides that you're using "stick together" from the fluff description, which is even more irrelevant.

"Each 'piece' of terrain should be a single substantial element (such as a building, forest or ruin) or a cluster of up to three smaller pieces of terrain (such as battlefield debris)." P. 120

This is a rule from the "alternating terrain placement" method of setting up terrain, which is just one of the allowed methods for setting up non-fortification terrain. The fact that in one unrelated context there is a rule that tells you to place a cluster of items chosen from the "battlefield debris" section is completely irrelevant to the rules for placing fortifications. Similarly, the fact that one proposed method for setting up terrain involves using clusters of items from the "battlefield debris" section does not mean that every other time you use items from the "battlefield debris" section you must also set them up in a cluster.

Fortifications are terrain... So it is 100% related...

The Gun is an upgrade (Option) for the ADL. Same as a Sponson Lascannon is an upgrade (Option) for a Predator. therefore options need to be on/with the things they were bought for.

Are you serious at this point, or are you trolling us, I seriously can not tell.

But either way, We gave answers backed by the rules, choose to ignore them if you wish. It makes no difference to me.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Fortifications are terrain... So it is 100% related...

And your point is? You're quoting a rule from one method of setting up non-fortification terrain. The fact that in an entirely separate step (remember, alternating terrain placement is done after fortifications are already on the table) you set up certain things in a cluster has absolutely nothing to do with how you're allowed to set up things outside of that step.

But either way, We gave answers backed by the rules, choose to ignore them if you wish. It makes no difference to me.

No, you just quoted random rules that have nothing to do with aegis lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Gun is an upgrade (Option) for the ADL. Same as a Sponson Lascannon is an upgrade (Option) for a Predator. therefore options need to be on/with the things they were bought for.

And your point is?

The sponson lascannon on the Predator is placed where the model requires it to be placed. There is no other location where you can place it without modifying the model, and the rules do not give you permission to modify the model.

The gun emplacement from an aegis line is a separate component which is not necessarily placed in contact with the other components. There is no dispute on this, the only argument is over whether there is a limit on how far away it can be placed and, if so, what that limit is.

It isn't very difficult to see how these two situations have absolutely nothing in common.

 Peregrine wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
So, where in the rules does it tell you what a cluster is? You must put your battlefield debris in a cluster. Without a definition of cluster, you cannot place them. If you place them in such a way that is not defined by the rulebook, then I am going to ask you where you got permission to place it in such a way. You will say "in the rules for Fortifications". To which I will ask you where it defines how to place a cluster of battlefield debris. To which there is no answer.

Since no definition is given then it is assumed to be a personal opinion thing depending on how the person placing the items in a cluster feels about it. It's just like how the narrative terrain placement method doesn't attempt to define "like a real battlefield" and just leaves it up to the aesthetic preferences of the person or people setting up the terrain.

Not that it matters, since there's no requirement for the components of an aegis line fortification to be set up in a cluster.

Except that an ADL is battlefield debris, and on page 120, you're given an example that battlefield debris is to be setup in a cluster. But since you're going to argue that that is a different section, I think it is time that we agree to disagree.

 Peregrine wrote:

Okay? Why are you letting it get you so worked up?

Because people keep pretending that their house rule isn't a house rule, which is confusing to less experienced players who might not be aware that the rules are different from the house rule.

And what you're offering is better? Why? Why is your interpretation of a vague rule (which you've yet to show is RAW) better than ours? Because you say it is? As far as I am concerned, we have multiple pages at least suggesting our interpretation to be correct. All you have done is try to refute what we've said rather than supply your own rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

Those people that are arguing that way are doing so because that is a reasonable conclusion. It is much more reasonable, given the rules and context provided in the rulebook, that you put your gun emplacement together with the ADL.

Define "together with".

Seriously? I mean, I'd really like to know, since we're done discussing rules - do you honestly sit there at the gaming table and waste 10 minutes of your game time explaining why you think you should be able to place your gun emplacement halfway across the field from the fortification it was bought for? Or do you simply impose upon the people you are playing with that you are correct and that they should just accept that simply because an option was purchased for something, doesn't mean it belongs to that thing at all?

 Peregrine wrote:

I mean, I can pay for the option for a flamestorm cannon on a Baal Predator, but since there's no rule defining how I can place these options, I can just put them anywhere I like, like on my land speeder.

Of course there is a rule, because the official model for the Baal Predator contains a flamestorm cannon and a location for it. There is no rule that allows you to modify the Baal Predator model to place its flamestorm cannon anywhere else.

What are you talking about? All the rule says is replace the twin-linked assault cannon with a flamestorm cannon. I did that. I removed my assault cannon and replaced it with a flamestorm cannon. . .that I put on my land speeder. I mean, just because it is an option for the Baal, doesn't mean it belongs to the Baal, just as the gun emplacement doesn't belong to the ADL, right? So, next, I'm taking the side sponsons and putting it on. . I dunno. . a dreadnought I guess. This could get fun!

All the options say are "May take the following". . .but since those options don't belong to the Baal, as you've pointed out with your ADL example, I can put them anywhere. The flamestorm is a more restrictive example because you have to trade something in. Take the side sponsons - they are worded exactly like the gun emplacement, and they don't come standard on the Baal model.

So, I can put those anywhere, right?

 Peregrine wrote:

That is not RAW. RAW is that it is battlefield debris and battlefield debris is clustered together. You placing it anywhere you want is not "clustered together".

Please cite where battlefield debris is required to be clustered together.

Page 120. And before you claim that that page is talking about something else, please be aware that this is something in the rules pointing you to a defintion of how to setup battlefield debris. This piece of language is a lot more helpful than you simply refuting it because you want to place your gun emplacement anywhere. Try to remember the Law of Economy: "Don't multiply beyond necessity." Meaning if you have to create exceptions or deny that facts exist to make your interpretation work, you're probably doing too much work. It is also called Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is probably the correct one. It is more likely that you're allowed to place the gun anywhere on the board, or like weapon purchased for vehicles, that the gun goes with the item it was purchased for?

 Peregrine wrote:

To me, you wanting to place your gun emplacement anywhere on the board is just as "obviously stupid and a legitimately game-breaking issue" as is you not being able to shoot from a model with no eyes.

Nonsense.

Not being able to shoot or assault with a model without eyes breaks the game. Forget wraithlords, any model with a helmet on is unable to shoot (since a helmet lens is not an eye) which results in both entire armies being unable to do anything but move around the table and do nothing until the game finally ends and puts the players out of their misery. This is an obviously broken state that has no resemblance to anything that could be called 40k.

That's not true. All of my Dark Eldar can shoot. I'm sorry you brought a non-functioning army to the table, but I can play within the rules. If you don't do what I say, I'm just gonna pack up and go home.

 Peregrine wrote:
[Being able to place a gun emplacement anywhere you want does not break the game. It might give an advantage to a player that you don't want them to have, but the game proceeds normally and works just fine. In fact, since you can deploy gun emplacements as terrain features entirely outside of the fortification FOC slot it can't break the game, since any location where I could put an aegis line quad gun is also a location where I could put a battlefield debris gun emplacement in the "place terrain" step and it's completely irrelevant where the gun came from.

In short, you need to learn the difference between "breaking the game" and "not working exactly the way I want it to".

You have to place battlefield debris, which, despite your best efforts, you haven't proven an ADL and its gun not to be, in a cluster. This is from page 120. This is the only rule we have when discussing placing battlefield debris. If you have others rules in regard to placing battlefield debris (which an ADL is), please refer us to a page and paragraph. Thanks.

If you do not place it in a cluster, then you are breaking a rule. Since we do not know what a cluster is, you cannot place an ADL at all, actually. 'Breaks the game' is a euphimism for a rule that doesn't work because the designers didn't think it through or write clear rules. Certainly you can play the game without placing your ADL and your gun. Just like you can play the game without any of your guys being able to shoot. It doesn't break the game at all. It just makes it really easy for me to win! Just because the rules don't work the "way you want them to" doesn't mean they cease to function. Sorry they forgot to put eyes on your models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

And your point is?

The sponson lascannon on the Predator is placed where the model requires it to be placed. There is no other location where you can place it without modifying the model, and the rules do not give you permission to modify the model.

That's not true. He didn't put it on the Baal predator at all. He simply purchased it for the Baal predator. He didnt' have to modify the model, he simply put the option elsewhere, just like you're diong.

 Peregrine wrote:
The gun emplacement from an aegis line is a separate component which is not necessarily placed in contact with the other components. There is no dispute on this, the only argument is over whether there is a limit on how far away it can be placed and, if so, what that limit is.

It isn't very difficult to see how these two situations have absolutely nothing in common.

That's interesting. So, the Baal predator can't put its options anywhere because they modify they model (even though the sponson is a separate component that you have to place on the model), but the gun emplacement can be put anywhere, even though it is a separate component that you have to place with the model.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

 puma713 wrote:
Except that an ADL is battlefield debris, and on page 120, you're given an example that battlefield debris is to be setup in a cluster. But since you're going to argue that that is a different section, I think it is time that we agree to disagree.

FFS, this is not complicated. There are two separate statements:

Statement 1 (page 120): place a cluster of battlefield debris.

Statement 2 (what you think it says): battlefield debris must always be placed in a cluster.

Can you really not see the difference between these two statements?

And what you're offering is better? Why?

Because mine is what the rules actually say, while yours is what (as people openly admit) you want it to say and think is fair.

Why is your interpretation of a vague rule (which you've yet to show is RAW) better than ours?

There's nothing vague at all. Since there is no limit on how far away the gun can be you can place it anywhere you want, following the normal limits for where a fortification can be placed (in your half of the table, not within 3" of another fortification).

What are you talking about? All the rule says is replace the twin-linked assault cannon with a flamestorm cannon.

Read the directions for assembling the model. It tells you exactly where to place the flamestorm cannon, and no rule gives you permission to place it anywhere else.

That's not true. All of my Dark Eldar can shoot. I'm sorry you brought a non-functioning army to the table, but I can play within the rules. If you don't do what I say, I'm just gonna pack up and go home.

FFS, can you really not see the difference between "my Tau army can't shoot at all because they all have helmets on" and "that quad gun over there was purchased with an aegis line instead of placed there in terrain setup"?

You have to place battlefield debris, which, despite your best efforts, you haven't proven an ADL and its gun not to be, in a cluster. This is from page 120. This is the only rule we have when discussing placing battlefield debris. If you have others rules in regard to placing battlefield debris (which an ADL is), please refer us to a page and paragraph. Thanks.

Sigh.

1) The "alternating terrain placement" rules on page 120 give one optional method for setting up terrain. When you are using this method you place a cluster of battlefield debris items. If you are not using this method (and you aren't using it when you place fortifications, since that's a separate step) none of those rules apply. Just like "move up to D6" from the run rules doesn't mean that you can only ever move D6" when moving in the movement phase.

2) This gives one way in which battlefield debris can be placed. That is NOT the same thing as a rule stating that battlefield debris is always placed that way. You are turning one instance of placing battlefield debris into a universal rule for how it must always be placed, and that is not what the rules say.

Let's dial it back a bit please folks.

Thanks.

Why can't you guys accept he is arguing it for the lawyers in the audience. He is doing literal you are doing interpretation.

Swear its like bible study all over again

 Leth wrote:
Why can't you guys accept he is arguing it for the lawyers in the audience. He is doing literal you are doing interpretation.

It's not even an interpretation. It's "I think it would be fairer if we change it to work this way", and they openly admit it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Why can't you guys accept he is arguing it for the lawyers in the audience. He is doing literal you are doing interpretation.

It's not even an interpretation. It's "I think it would be fairer if we change it to work this way", and they openly admit it.

Not at all, you just ignore our rules quotes. If the rules truly said that the gun can be placed anywhere I would be fine with that, but they don't.

P. 120 tells us how to place terrain, the ADL is terrain. Battlefiled debris to be exact, and we know from P. 120 we can place a single piece of terrain (Like a Bastion, or Skyshield Landing Pad). or a cluster of Battlefield Debris (Like an ADL with its optional gun).

If you do not place the gun with the bastion it is not a single piece of terrain and you are breaking rules.

If you do not place the gun in a cluster with the ADL you are breaking rules.

It is interpretation because it is trying to argue the intent of undefined words in the context of the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, you just ignore our rules quotes.

Because you haven't quoted any relevant rules. What you have done is the equivalent of quoting "move up to D6" when making a run move" in a debate on how far a model moves in the movement phase.

If the rules truly said that the gun can be placed anywhere I would be fine with that, but they don't.

You can't place it anywhere. You have to follow the rules for placing a fortification, which require it to be placed in your half of the table and more than 3" from any other fortification. Since no other restrictions are stated in the rules those are the only limits you have to follow.

P. 120 tells us how to place terrain, the ADL is terrain. Battlefiled debris to be exact, and we know from P. 120 we can place a single piece of terrain (Like a Bastion, or Skyshield Landing Pad). or a cluster of Battlefield Debris (Like an ADL with its optional gun).

If you are using the "alternating terrain placement" method of placing terrain. Not only is this not the only way of placing terrain, it isn't even the preferred method of placing terrain (since you use it if you can't agree on an acceptable arrangement using the narrative method).

If you are using the narrative placement method the "cluster" rule does not apply, since you follow those rules and not the rules for the method you aren't using.

If you are placing a fortification the "cluster" rule does not apply, since you are dealing with an entirely separate step in setting up the table.

If you are placing a crater (an item of battlefield debris) from a destroyed vehicle the "cluster" rule does not apply, since it says to place a single crater, not a cluster of battlefield debris which includes at least one crater.

If you are placing battlefield debris for any reason other than step #3 of alternating terrain placement the "cluster" rule does not apply.

If you do not place the gun in a cluster with the ADL you are breaking rules.

Only if you are placing a defense line and gun emplacement in step #3 of the alternating terrain placement method. If you are placing an aegis line fortification then the instructions in step #3 do not apply.

And you have yet to define "cluster", or give even the slightest amount of evidence from the rules (as-printed, not your opinion of what they should say) that any given distance between objects in the cluster is too far.

If you want to say you can put the Gun Emplacement anywhere on the table that is fine, but by the RAW the Gun Emplacement can never be placed because it is not a fortification.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you want to say you can put the Gun Emplacement anywhere on the table that is fine

I already conceded that this is not legal. The gun emplacement still has to obey all of the rules for where you can legally place a fortification, I only dispute your invented "rule" that it has to be within a certain distance of the wall segments.

but by the RAW the Gun Emplacement can never be placed because it is not a fortification.

Of course it's a fortification. It says very clearly in the aegis line entry that it is a fortification.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
but by the RAW the Gun Emplacement can never be placed because it is not a fortification.

Of course it's a fortification. It says very clearly in the aegis line entry that it is a fortification.

No the ADL is a fortification, the Gun emplacement is not.(It is an option to the fortification, but not a fortification itself, as you can not purchase just a Gun Emplacement in your fortification slot).

 DeathReaper wrote:
No the ADL is a fortification, the Gun emplacement is not.(It is an option to the fortification, but not a fortification itself, as you can not purchase just a Gun Emplacement in your fortification slot).

Ok, we agree then. The gun emplacement is part of the aegis line. Since the aegis line is part of a fortification, so is the emplacement. Just like a sergeant is part of a tactical squad, and the whole thing is a troops unit. So:

1) Since the gun emplacement is part of a fortification it is set up in the fortification step, and the "cluster" rule on page 120 is not relevant since it applies to something being done in the terrain step.

2) Since the gun emplacement is part of a fortification the entire aegis line fortification must be set up following the rules for fortifications (entirely within your half of the table, not within 3" of another fortification).

3) All of the wall sections must be deployed as a continuous structure, in the legal area designated by the rules in point #2.

4) Since no additional limits are imposed on the location of the gun emplacement it may be placed anywhere in the legal area designated by the rules in point #2.


Your assumption that the gun must be placed "near" the wall, or in a "cluster" with the wall, or within some arbitrary distance of the wall, is not supported in any way by the rules. Nothing in the rules even suggests that there are additional limits beyond those in point #2, making any attempt to argue otherwise a blatant attempt to turn a house rule on what "should" happen into a supposed part of the standard rules.

Funny, DeathReaper, that the rulebook FAQ refer's to the ADL's gun emplacement as being attached to the ADL, isn't it? And they keep referring to the "Fortification's" gun emplacements.

. . .it's almost as if they meant for the gun emplacement to be attached or be a part of the fortification. Silly rules.

When I read the entirety of this thread, I could not believe how this could be much of a problem.

Look at it this way.

The Aegis defense line has its' own rule set. So we must follow it. Why I say as such is simple.

You pay the points for the Aegis defense line. Under the sub headings there are options you can take, so you buy either comms relay or the lascannon thingy or the Quad Cannon.

What you buy with the Aegis Defense Line, it also goes along with it. It is because it is under the sub heading, that is why you cannot split it apart. It is an upgrade of the line that comes with the line, thus goes with the line.

If we split it up, it is like you buy a Missle launcher for a Long Fang and you say I could put it somewhere far away from the long fang. WTF?

wallacethe5 wrote:
What you buy with the Aegis Defense Line, it also goes along with it. It is because it is under the sub heading, that is why you cannot split it apart. It is an upgrade of the line that comes with the line, thus goes with the line.

Now define "with the line". Exactly how far away from the closest wall section are you allowed to place the gun? There obviously isn't any requirement to put it in contact with any of the wall sections (since the picture shows it some distance away), and there is no maximum distance given anywhere in the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

wallacethe5 wrote:
What you buy with the Aegis Defense Line, it also goes along with it. It is because it is under the sub heading, that is why you cannot split it apart. It is an upgrade of the line that comes with the line, thus goes with the line.

Now define "with the line". Exactly how far away from the closest wall section are you allowed to place the gun? There obviously isn't any requirement to put it in contact with any of the wall sections (since the picture shows it some distance away), and there is no maximum distance given anywhere in the rules.

The picture doesn't show it "some distance away", it shows it about half an inch away from the wall.

 puma713 wrote:
The picture doesn't show it "some distance away", it shows it about half an inch away from the wall.

The point is that it's not in contact. You are clearly allowed to place it separate from any of the wall sections, the only dispute is over whether you can place it anywhere a fortification can legally be placed (RAW), or whether there's some limit on how far away it can be (how some people want it to be).

 Peregrine wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
The picture doesn't show it "some distance away", it shows it about half an inch away from the wall.

The point is that it's not in contact. You are clearly allowed to place it separate from any of the wall sections, the only dispute is over whether you can place it anywhere a fortification can legally be placed (RAW), or whether there's some limit on how far away it can be (how some people want it to be).

I'm not the one that refers to the emplacement as attached to the ADL, GW is (Main Rulebook FAQ, pg. 8, left column). And just because you put (parenthesis) around your ideas does not make them correct or true. It simply means that you're having to clarify what you believe, because no one else understands how you could be playing it the way you seem to be.

 puma713 wrote:
I'm not the one that refers to the emplacement as attached to the ADL, GW is (Main Rulebook FAQ, pg. 8, left column).

That FAQ refers to the wall sections, not the gun emplacement.

And just because you put (parenthesis) around your ideas does not make them correct or true. It simply means that you're having to clarify what you believe, because no one else understands how you could be playing it the way you seem to be.

Ok, if what I said in the parentheses isn't true then could you cite exactly where it says that (as has been proposed here) the emplacement has to be within 3" of a wall section? Because if you can't then it is a house rule, not the rules of the game.

Looks like something tournies will need to FAQ. Rulebook isn't clear on how close / how far away it can be imo, RAW.

I think the argument boils down to which view of the rules you take:

1-Everything is allowed, except the things the rules specifically ban.

2-Nothing is allowed, except the things the rules specifically allow.

3-Some sort of compromise between (1) and (2).

On my understanding of the argument here by (1) you could place it anywhere, and by (2) you must place it with the line.

I would go for (2).

 Peregrine wrote:

wallacethe5 wrote:
What you buy with the Aegis Defense Line, it also goes along with it. It is because it is under the sub heading, that is why you cannot split it apart. It is an upgrade of the line that comes with the line, thus goes with the line.

Now define "with the line". Exactly how far away from the closest wall section are you allowed to place the gun? There obviously isn't any requirement to put it in contact with any of the wall sections (since the picture shows it some distance away), and there is no maximum distance given anywhere in the rules.

How many rules can you quote that don't use an undefined term or word?

Even the most RAW obsessed hardcore player makes a ton of assumptions about every rule in the game, most of these are trivial (meaning of common english words) but many are an assumed concensus. Computers play pure RAW not people.

I'll have a look when I get home but I expect this is just an unclear rule that cannot be played without a certain amount of subjective interptretation, Assuming that 40k can be played properly without subjecitve interpretation is in my opinion giving the rules a level of credit for conciseness and robustness they in no way deserve.

Do I see in the rules where it says you can move it 30 yards away from the Aegis Line? No, I don't see it there. Doesn't mean you can do it?

All I see in the rule book is a picture showing the gun near the Aegis line. Do I see a picture in the rule book saying you can put it far 60 yards away? No.... I see a no mention on how far you can put the gun, but I see a picture that shows how close the gun is to the Aegis line.

 Peregrine wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I'm not the one that refers to the emplacement as attached to the ADL, GW is (Main Rulebook FAQ, pg. 8, left column).

That FAQ refers to the wall sections, not the gun emplacement.

Ummm, no:

Can you shoot at a gun emplacement attached to an Aegis defence line?

Yes - see page 105 for a gun emplacement's profile.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
Looks like something tournies will need to FAQ. Rulebook isn't clear on how close / how far away it can be imo, RAW.

I would agree with this. That it is not clear. However, in trying to play in the least advantageous way and going off three or four different rules in the rulebook, I would place my gun emplacement at least with my ADL.

BRB page 114 : Fortifications : Options. This section lists any additional weapons, wargear or upgrades the fortification can have, and the points cost
of each.

Aegis Defense line : Options : Gun emplacement with quad-gun 50points

The gun emplacement with quad gun is an option for the ADL. An option for the ADL is "additional weapons/wargear/upgrades" the fortification can have.

The quad gun is not a separate piece, it is an additional upgrade for the fortification (in this case the ADL), just as any other items have upgrades to the initial model.

"Even the picture doesn't show it touching" .. actually, yes it does. Take a closer look. It is TOUCHING the rest of the ADL at the back side.

ok skimmed this so pardon me if i missed it.
Way back when the one person said show me where it can't.
Isn't one of the overriding gw rules that unless it says you can you can't.
So therefore it comes with the aegis it stays with the aegis unless it says you can put it somewhere else.
Is that a hold over from an older edition? or Am I imagining it?

canadianguy wrote:
ok skimmed this so pardon me if i missed it.
Way back when the one person said show me where it can't.
Isn't one of the overriding gw rules that unless it says you can you can't.
So therefore it comes with the aegis it stays with the aegis unless it says you can put it somewhere else.
Is that a hold over from an older edition? or Am I imagining it?

Warhammer relies on a Permissive rule set. If you don't have permission (or if you have something restricting permission) you cannot do something. For example: I have permission to assault in the assault phase (permission). Disembarking from a vehicle overrides this permission (restriction). If the vehicle has the assault vehicle special rule, it overrides the restriction.

The ADL comes with up to 4 long and 4 short ADL sections which must be in base contact with one other ADL section. I have permission to purchase a Comm Relay or Gun emplacemnt. There is no restriction (that I'm seeing) on where to place, as it is not an ADL section.