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.

If the gun is terrain then the players need to decide if they want it to be difficult, dangerous, impassable or clear terrain. The Battle Wagon will then interact with the terrain piece as normal. I imagine by default as part of an ADL, that it would be at least considered difficult terrain.

 Flinty wrote:
If the gun is terrain then the players need to decide if they want it to be difficult, dangerous, impassable or clear terrain. The Battle Wagon will then interact with the terrain piece as normal. I imagine by default as part of an ADL, that it would be at least considered difficult terrain.

100% this. My group plays Gun Emplacements as impassible terrain. but other groups may play it as difficult. they both seem to be a valid way to handle the gun.

 mrwhoop wrote:
So then how would you place the BW? WMS the gun elsewhere? The BW? There was a valid target to tank shock.

*edited Or rather no target needed: tank shock is just saying the direction/distance but I was curious if the gun moved or not and then who could get in base contact since the FAQ says 'nonvehicle' to shoot it. Thanks

The Gun Emplacement would never move, only models move out from under a Tank Shock.

If there are any models atop the gun you would probably have to use WMS for their exact location, unless you and your opponent agreed pregame that the gun itself is impassible.

The crux of this argument is the blurb that the quad gun does not have a unit type. The BRB clearly defines it as battlefield debris. So therefore it cannot be a model.

Gun emplacements can be attacked and they can be assaulted. However, there is no permission to assign wounds to them, since only models can have wounds assigned to them. Since the Quad gun is terrain, it cannot literally be killed without taking a bit of a leap of logic. That leap of logic can also be used to say that the gun emplacement is a model as well as battlefield debris.

The rules in this area are incomplete in so many ways.

Seems like a weak argument either way. It has wounds and a stat-line. I've VS'd them before in tournaments, and I will continue to do so.

Unless GW comes out with a FAQ/Eratta barring it.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Seems like a weak argument either way. It has wounds and a stat-line. I've VS'd them before in tournaments, and I will continue to do so.

Unless GW comes out with a FAQ/Eratta barring it.

It does have wounds and a stat-line, but that does not make it a Model/Unit.

The rules actually prohibit it, so if you feel like knowingly doing something against the rules then go for it. Just be sure to tell your opponents that what you are doing is against the rules, and ask if it is okay to house rule it that way.

Fragile wrote:
The crux of this argument is the blurb that the quad gun does not have a unit type. The BRB clearly defines it as battlefield debris. So therefore it cannot be a model.

This is true.

Gun emplacements can be attacked and they can be assaulted. However, there is no permission to assign wounds to them, since only models can have wounds assigned to them. Since the Quad gun is terrain, it cannot literally be killed without taking a bit of a leap of logic. That leap of logic can also be used to say that the gun emplacement is a model as well as battlefield debris.

Incorrect, as you are given permission to use the Shooting and CC rules against the Gun Emplacement, this includes assigning wounds and casualty removal.

The rules in this area are incomplete in so many ways.

I really do not see what this has to do with Gun Emplacements at all.

Perhaps you can cite the rule that allows you to allocate wounds to terrain. Permission to shoot does not equal permission to wound.

I really do not see what this has to do with Gun Emplacements at all.

Im not sure what your discussing then, as this post was about the "Gun emplacement with quad-gun" that is attached to an ADL.

It tells you that you can shoot it, therefore you have to use all the rules for shooting. Why would you only cherry pick some rules.

In that line of thinking it gives you permission to shoot it, but does not give you permission to roll to wound or take armor/cover saves either. So all you can do is roll to hit, then move on to the next units shooting...

That interpretation makes the rule useless so we should apply the whole shooting process instead of just rolling to hit, as that does not make any rules useless.

Remember the rule says "The gun emplacement can be shot at and attacked in close combat." (105)

If it can be shot at you can roll to wound, take saves etc, as that is how you shoot at something.

Fragile wrote:
Perhaps you can cite the rule that allows you to allocate wounds to terrain. Permission to shoot does not equal permission to wound.

Is rolling to wound and allocating wounds part of the shooting process?
I'm away from my book currently so your answer to this question would be helpful.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Perhaps you can cite the rule that allows you to allocate wounds to terrain. Permission to shoot does not equal permission to wound.

Is rolling to wound and allocating wounds part of the shooting process?
I'm away from my book currently so your answer to this question would be helpful.

Its absolutely does. Step 4-5.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Perhaps you can cite the rule that allows you to allocate wounds to terrain. Permission to shoot does not equal permission to wound.

Is rolling to wound and allocating wounds part of the shooting process?
I'm away from my book currently so your answer to this question would be helpful.

Its absolutely does. Step 4-5.

So why does permission to shoot (follow the shooting process) not give permission to wound (part of the shooting process)?