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.

 Spazamataz wrote:
I'm well aware this won't stop the debate (not that I want to) but all seem to have forgotten "The most important rule".
If anyone is in a tournament and this argument turns up.. The only rule you would be able to go by is the most important rule... This is not just a house rule that's been vetted by GW, it is in fact The Most Important Rule!!! And all players of all game types have the right to call apon it... Especially if this argument is during a tournament.. Unless the organisers have there own calling on it.. If you don't know what The Most Important Rule is.. First.. Did you read the BRB? Second, let the dice settle the argument...

But there is a problem with this "most important rule".
What if you are trying to do something that is clearly allowed by your codex, but the opponent wants to roll a dice for it?
Or if someone is obviously breaking the rules for a great advantage and he wants to roll a dice?

That's the problem in this discussion.
The ADL-rule says all sections has to be attached, but people come and say that it could be interpreted in some other way.

We might as well throw the entire BRB out the door and go play Dungeons and Dragons where you can do anything if you roll a 20

Just wondering if anyone has the link for the FAQ everyone is mentioning?

Cheers

I am seeing alot of argument over the word "attached" that totally ignore the specific GW meaning of the word. Which simply means in GW contact " to be part of the squad or unit". See IC's for the reference.

And how far is an attached model allowed to be from his unit? Yeah, exactly'

barnowl wrote:
I am seeing alot of argument over the word "attached" that totally ignore the specific GW meaning of the word. Which simply means in GW contact " to be part of the squad or unit". See IC's for the reference.

IC rules use "joined" not "attached".

Dakkamite, the link to the main FAQ page is in my sig, as well as in Insaniaks (I think).

However other people have been reporting problems with the GW site.

barnowl wrote:
I am seeing alot of argument over the word "attached" that totally ignore the specific GW meaning of the word. Which simply means in GW contact " to be part of the squad or unit". See IC's for the reference.

Which use the words "joined"

Many posts ago, I mentioned an analogous situation between a Troops choice and a Dedicated Transport (analogous, not identical).

p109 says "Dedicated Transports sit outside the Force Org. structure, as they are attached to the unit they are bought for". Emphasis is mine.

Clearly, the transport need not be physically connected to it's squad, although that would be very amusing to see. I just wanted to point to a specific example of GW using "attached" in an organisational sense. "Attached" does not have just one meaning, even in the rarified universe of GW.

Yes, and oddly enough "attached" is directly related to "Force Org Structure", context being king.

Not analogous to talking about the physical model, at all

Hang on! All through this thread, people have been arguing that "attached" only has one meaning, and that it is physical attachment. I've just provided a BRB reference where this is clearly false.

People arguing that a QG must be treated as a wall section per the rules and have it physically touching have based their argument on scant evidence.

First, the FAQ entry referring to an "attached" ADL. Asserting this means physically attached when it is perfectly reasonable for it to mean organisationally attached (supported by the demonstrated use of an alternative meaning elsewhere in the rules) is dubious at best. Even if the FAQ means I am allowed to shoot at a QG physically attached to the wall, my next question is, "what about an unattached one". The rules and the FAQ are annoyingly silent on this. The only reasonable conclusion is that the FAQ simply reinforces what we already know - you are allowed to target and shoot QGs, but we knew that anyway from the Gun Emplacement rules. This FAQ does not help us resolved whether we must connect the QD or not. (BTW, we don't seem to have permission to shoot at a Comms Relay, attached or otherwise).

"But we bought it as an upgrade to the ADL - surely we treat it as just another bit of the ADL". Yes, we did buy it as an upgrade to the ADL, but upgrading an FOC slot purchase with a different type of object (Defence Line vs Gun Emplacement) doesn't mean I treat one as the other. If we were allowed to spend 10pts on buying another wall section, then yes, it would clearly be subject to the rules that require wall sections be contiguous. But it's not a wall section. The Guns and Comms Relay are different types of Battlefield Debris, and there is no rule saying they are wall sections.

With nothing else to go on, we've resorted to using pictures in the BRB and WDs to try to understand what we are supposed to do. There is 1 (perhaps 2) pictures in the BRB, and 1 in a WD I can find, where a GE is (or might be) touching the wall. In all other cases, it is pretty clear that the GE or Comms Relay is nowhere near the wall, and in some cases (in WD), they don't even have the wall sections touching properly. So I don't think photographic evidence really helps the "touching" case (besides, relying on photos is a pretty shaky basis for a ruling, unless the evidence is overwhelming).

So I'm still not convinced there is any compelling evidence to say that a GE or Comms Relay should be treated as a wall section, although I am open to the possibility. Personally, until it is FAQed, I'm happy to discuss it with my opponent before play. I certainly don't think the case is made that they must be touching, but YMMV.

One note: The ADL-ruling says that all sections must be in base contact, the word "wall section" isn't mentioned on the entire page.
Nobody is treating it as a wall-section, people are treating it as a section of an ADL.
They do this because section means "one of several components; a piece".

And this: Ockham's razor

We all know that the word "attached" has more than one meaning and the FOC-example can't be 'physically attached' as it's impossible.
But with the ADL it is possible, so we can and should follow the simplest meaning of the word!
It's what one always does with rules: Take the simplest explanation that doesn't break a rule.
Because if you don't, one might claim that it is spiritually attached and will die if the other one dies (if you catch where I am going..)


But you are right, it's not FAQ'd and I hope they hurry with it.. Shouldn't take them long to write one line on it.
And till it is, I won't complain about it being 'away from the ADL' as long as people don't try to be cheesy with this.

Kangodo wrote:
One note: The ADL-ruling says that all sections must be in base contact, the word "wall section" isn't mentioned on the entire page.
Nobody is treating it as a wall-section, people are treating it as a section of an ADL.
They do this because section means "one of several components; a piece".

You're right, I was taking liberties with wall section.The ADL composition actually says is consists of "up to 4 long and 4 short ADL sections. Each section in the ADL..." Therefore, an ADL consists of at most 8 sections, and if I add a QD it is by definition not a section - I've now got 9 bits, and only 8 of them can be sections. Specious argument, but there you go .

Kangodo wrote:

But you are right, it's not FAQ'd and I hope they hurry with it.. Shouldn't take them long to write one line on it.
And till it is, I won't complain about it being 'away from the ADL' as long as people don't try to be cheesy with this.

Same here.