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.

But you have no specific permission to put it outside of what it was purchased from as an upgrade.

Am I wrong, obtuse, missing something?

Honestly, I'm not sure if you are wrong. I generally place it within my ADL ring, but not necessarily touching a section. The picture for the ADL is ambiguous, it might be touching, it might not be. The picture for the Bastion, however, is very clear that not only does it not need to be on top of the Bastion, it doesn't even need to touch.

Cheesedoodler wrote:
This came up a tournament I played this past weekend. <snip>

After looking online a bit, and through the rulebook we didn't find ANY ruling as to where you can or can't place the quad gun, and so he was allowed to put it up in the forth level of a ruin in his deployment zone. Seemed a bit rediculous to me...

First all he cheated. Aegis Def lines go down before terrain does so there would be no forth level of a ruin on the table. Even if the TO allowed him to place it separate you cannot place a terrain piece within 3 inches of another one so he was wrong there.

I would suggest the 3" figure is good for the following reason. All fortifications must be more than 3" away from other fortifications, since you only have permission to place 1 fortification, by the above definition by placing the quad gun over 3" away from the wall you have placed 2 fortifications, for which you have no permission. Therefore you must place it within 3".

Comments?

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
I would suggest the 3" figure is good for the following reason. All fortifications must be more than 3" away from other fortifications, since you only have permission to place 1 fortification, by the above definition by placing the quad gun over 3" away from the wall you have placed 2 fortifications, for which you have no permission. Therefore you must place it within 3".

Comments?

Andrew

That makes no sense, sorry. How are you getting from 'fortifications must be 3"apart' to 'being 3" apart makes it two fortifications' ?

P120. The distance between terrain pieces is to differentiate them, yes? So by placing the gun over 3" away you have disassociated it from the main fortification, thereby creating confusion as to whether it is one or two pieces.

Cheers

Andrew

PS I have used terrain and fortification since Fortification=terrain, but terrain =/= fortification

 AndrewC wrote:
P120. The distance between terrain pieces is to differentiate them, yes?

No. Rules about distances between fortications and terrain are there just for game balance and to make sure one area of board is not cluttered too much. Exactly same reason as the rules for terrain density limit exists.
There's nothing in the rules, or even in the "Forging a narrative" section one could construe to mean the distance rule is because "we want to differentiate them" from each other.

 AndrewC wrote:
So by placing the gun over 3" away you have disassociated it from the main fortification, thereby creating confusion as to whether it is one or two pieces.

As said earlier, the premise of this argument is flawed, so it is null and void.

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

All of them, in this case. For example, infantry models in a unit must remain "close" to each other, but the rules clearly define the maximum legal distance between models as 2". There is no guessing about how far apart is "fair" or "a reasonable compromise" or whatever, the book tells you what the maximum distance is and how to measure it. And then in other cases (vehicle squadrons, for example), it gives a different maximum distance number.

The only "ambiguity" here is brought in by people who want the rules to impose a distance limit even when they do not.

wallacethe5 wrote:
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?

No, because the standard table is not 30 yards across. The rules are very clear on where you may place the gun emplacement: anywhere entirely within your half of the table and more than 3" from any other fortification. There are no additional limits given in the rules, so anywhere that meets those two conditions is legal.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Even if the TO allowed him to place it separate you cannot place a terrain piece within 3 inches of another one so he was wrong there.

That is not true at all. If you are using the "alternating terrain placement" method for setting up the table you must place the terrain pieces more than 3" away from each other while doing that process. That restriction does not apply at any other time (for example, if you place a crater for an exploded vehicle it does not have to be 3" away from any other terrain).

Since fortifications are not placed during the "alternating terrain placement" process that rule is irrelevant, and the only rule that applies is the limit for fortifications: at least 3" from any other fortification. There is no limit on where they can be in relation to non-fortification terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

canadianguy wrote:
But you have no specific permission to put it outside of what it was purchased from as an upgrade.

Yes, because you haven't even defined "outside". If I deploy my walls in a single straight line where is "inside" and where is "outside"? You might attempt to argue that it must be "behind" the line, but how far behind it is legal? And from what angle do we look when determining whether the gun is "behind" the line (after all, I can always find an angle that puts the gun behind the line no matter where it is on the table)? You probably have your own personal idea about what "makes sense" on this subject, but you haven't given any actual rules that support your opinion.

Not that it really matters, because there is no rule that says anything about imposing additional location restrictions beyond "in your half of the table" and "not within 3" of another fortification". Since no additional restrictions are stated you just follow the standard rules for determining where you can legally place a fortification.

Replace "outside" with "with" or "attached to" with holy fing word splicing
Its an upgrade for the aDL.
So would you then say the gun for the bastian can be placed anywhere in your half vs putting it on the top of the bastian?

canadianguy wrote:
Replace "outside" with "with" or "attached to" with holy fing word splicing

Words have meanings you know. If you want to cite a rule you need to define what the rule says, you can't just say "place it over there because I said so or you're TFG". "Outside", "with", "attached to", etc, are all very different things and you can't use them interchangeably.

Show me a rule where it ays you can place it anywhere?

I won't, because there is no such rule. The rules are very clear about where you can place it: anywhere entirely within your half of the table and more than 3" from any other fortification. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that even suggests that the gun emplacement follows any location rules other than the standard ones for a fortification.

It isn't a seperate fortification it is an upgrade for one.

And it is legal to place it as far away from the walls as you like. There is no rule stating how close together the pieces of a single fortification have to be.

So, just to clarify then.
You would argue that any upgrade for any fortification can be placed anywher in your deployment area because GW didn't specify you couldn't. You then fall back to placing fortification rules and treat the original and the upgrades as 2 completely seperate pieces.

If that is true do the quad guns in this scenario act as fortifications or a unit?

?

canadianguy wrote:
You would argue that any upgrade for any fortification can be placed anywher in your deployment area because GW didn't specify you couldn't. You then fall back to placing fortification rules and treat the original and the upgrades as 2 completely seperate pieces.

No, not any fortification. It would depend on the fortification.

A fortification that has a specific location for an upgrade on the model (for example, upgrading the missiles on a fortress of redemption) is just an upgrade to the model like any other upgrade to a model (taking a melta gun on a tactical squad, for example).

A fortification that has an upgrade that is a separate model (the aegis line and its upgrades) is two (or more) separate models which are placed according to the standard rules for where you can place a fortification unless there are additional restrictions imposed for that particular fortification (for example, the rule that all of the wall sections have to form a continuous chain).

Since the gun emplacement is the second case, a separate model, it follows those rules.

If that is true do the quad guns in this scenario act as fortifications or a unit?

As fortifications, because they're fortifications (or, to be more precise, part of a fortification).

Ok
Think I get the crux of it.
Aegis line doesn't haver a set place to put ermplaced weapons therefore it is seperate and you can place it as a seperate fortification.

In that case could you even put the quad gun within 2 inches of an aegis line as that would break the distance barrier mentioned when placing terrauin?

The bastion however has set sites for emplaced weapons pg 97
"The bastian also has several emplaced weapons: a hvy bolter on each facing and an icarus lascannon on the roof"
So it would be one fortification with multiple emplacements?

Based on the replies, since your never given permission for the QG to be placed seperately then it must be in contact with a section of the wall.

The only possible exception that I can see is in P91 for area terrain. (And this may also be a holdover from earlier editions) If the ADL is set up in a completely enclosed shape the QG can be placed anywhere within the bondaries of the wall.

Peregrin, scince you are only allowed by the rules to place 1 fortification how do you tally the fact that you have placed 2? The ADL & QG?

Cheers

Andrew

 DeathReaper wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
Actually doesn't this add an additional question? Can the ADL and gun emplacement which are both terrain pieces be placed within 3" of each other?

As they are one singular fortification, and Battlefield Debris, they must be deployed in a cluster.


"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 batdefield debris)." P.120

This should have ended it. Pretty clear here what they want you to do with the gun.

Have to agree!

Next game I play I'm taking the quad gun from the top of my bastion and placing it in some terrain wahoo, makes sense right?

canadianguy wrote:
Ok
Think I get the crux of it.
Aegis line doesn't haver a set place to put ermplaced weapons therefore it is seperate and you can place it as a seperate fortification.

In that case could you even put the quad gun within 2 inches of an aegis line as that would break the distance barrier mentioned when placing terrauin?

The bastion however has set sites for emplaced weapons pg 97
"The bastian also has several emplaced weapons: a hvy bolter on each facing and an icarus lascannon on the roof"
So it would be one fortification with multiple emplacements?

First, the ADL cannot get emplaced weapons. Second the emplaced heavy bolters are typically one on each side, it is not mandatory. Third, the Icarus Lascannon on the Bastion is a Gun Empalcement, not an emplaced weapon.

Cheesedoodler wrote:
This came up a tournament I played this past weekend. I had always played that the gun had to maintain coherency with the ADL, but my opponent said "show me where it says that. Show me where it says I can't place it anywhere I want"

I always hate it when people say that.
My response would be "Show me where the rules forbid me to throw all your models on the ground and declare victory because you have nothing left!" and that would probably shut them up.

Warhammer rules tell you what you CAN do, not what you can't do.
And if you want to do something than you better give a ruling that allows you to do such a thing.

After looking online a bit, and through the rulebook we didn't find ANY ruling as to where you can or can't place the quad gun, and so he was allowed to put it up in the forth level of a ruin in his deployment zone. Seemed a bit rediculous to me...

The ADL + Quad should be placed before the ruins, that's why he couldn't do that.

 Peregrine wrote:

canadianguy wrote:
You would argue that any upgrade for any fortification can be placed anywher in your deployment area because GW didn't specify you couldn't. You then fall back to placing fortification rules and treat the original and the upgrades as 2 completely seperate pieces.

No, not any fortification. It would depend on the fortification.

A fortification that has a specific location for an upgrade on the model (for example, upgrading the missiles on a fortress of redemption) is just an upgrade to the model like any other upgrade to a model (taking a melta gun on a tactical squad, for example).

A fortification that has an upgrade that is a separate model (the aegis line and its upgrades) is two (or more) separate models which are placed according to the standard rules for where you can place a fortification unless there are additional restrictions imposed for that particular fortification (for example, the rule that all of the wall sections have to form a continuous chain).

Since the gun emplacement is the second case, a separate model, it follows those rules.

If that is true do the quad guns in this scenario act as fortifications or a unit?

As fortifications, because they're fortifications (or, to be more precise, part of a fortification).

You may purchase the Quadgun as an upgrade to the ADL. You now treat the quad gun as a fortification of it's own. You place the ADL and the Quad Gun in separate locations. By placing an ADL and a Quad gun as 2 separate pieces, you are therefore placing 2 fortifications; You have no permission (without a 2nd detachment) to place more than 1 fortification. You have therefore broken the rules.

Rorschach9 wrote:
You may purchase the Quadgun as an upgrade to the ADL. You now treat the quad gun as a fortification of it's own. You place the ADL and the Quad Gun in separate locations. By placing an ADL and a Quad gun as 2 separate pieces, you are therefore placing 2 fortifications; You have no permission (without a 2nd detachment) to purchase more than 1 fortification.

FTFY.

 Happyjew wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
You may purchase the Quadgun as an upgrade to the ADL. You now treat the quad gun as a fortification of it's own. You place the ADL and the Quad Gun in separate locations. By placing an ADL and a Quad gun as 2 separate pieces, you are therefore placing 2 fortifications; You have no permission (without a 2nd detachment) to purchase more than 1 fortification.

FTFY.

Fine, you have no permission to purchase more than 1 fortification. Therefore, if the Quadgun is being treated as a fortification, you cannot purchase it as you have already purchased the ADL. Same results (if you cannot purchase it, you cannot place it).

Except there is no Fortification called "Weapon Emplacement" or "Comm Relay". Both the ADL and the Weapon Emplacement/Comm Relay are classified as Battlefield Debris. They take up one FOC Slot, similar to a unit and their DT. Currently the only rules regarding deployment of the ADL is that the actual sections must be in base contact with each other. There is absolutely no rule on where to place the Weapon Emplacement/Comm Relay. There is also no rule saying your Land Raider Sponsons have to be on the Land Raider itself, however, that would definitely be called MFA and I doubt you would find many people to play with.

The Weapon Emplacement (Quad Gun/Lascanon) and Comm relay are "options" for the ADL. These options are clearly defined as "additional wargear". Where do you place "additional wargear"?

Depends. Some options must be modeled on the model (per almost every codex). Other options can be completely separate from the unit that purchases it, such as dedicated transports.

tgf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
Actually doesn't this add an additional question? Can the ADL and gun emplacement which are both terrain pieces be placed within 3" of each other?

As they are one singular fortification, and Battlefield Debris, they must be deployed in a cluster.


"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 batdefield debris)." P.120

This should have ended it. Pretty clear here what they want you to do with the gun.

Is it? I see nothing there that defines how close together they need to be in order to be a 'cluster'.

 insaniak wrote:

tgf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
Actually doesn't this add an additional question? Can the ADL and gun emplacement which are both terrain pieces be placed within 3" of each other?

As they are one singular fortification, and Battlefield Debris, they must be deployed in a cluster.


"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 batdefield debris)." P.120

This should have ended it. Pretty clear here what they want you to do with the gun.

Is it? I see nothing there that defines how close together they need to be in order to be a 'cluster'.

The English Definition tells us that a cluster needs to be close together.

Which still doesn't answer the question. How close is 'close together' ?

 insaniak wrote:
Which still doesn't answer the question. How close is 'close together' ?

2"? Since that is what models require to be in coherency with their unit.

 insaniak wrote:
Is it? I see nothing there that defines how close together they need to be in order to be a 'cluster'.

Not only that, but the rule he's quoting is from the "alternating terrain placement" process, not a universal rule defining how battlefield debris is always placed. He's taking a rule that says "place a cluster" and misquoting it as if it says "you must always place these items in a cluster".

Kangodo wrote:
The ADL + Quad should be placed before the ruins, that's why he couldn't do that.

Well, the premise of the situation is a game where that rule has been changed (for example, a tournament where the TO places all of the terrain at the beginning of the day). If you're in that situation then yes, you may place a quad gun on top of a ruin as long as it follows the normal rules for where an emplacement can be (own table half, 3" from other fortifications) since there is no rule saying that, for purposes of placing fortifications, terrain features are in any way special.

 AndrewC wrote:
Based on the replies, since your never given permission for the QG to be placed seperately then it must be in contact with a section of the wall.

Err, what? Where are you getting that from? The relevant rules governing quad gun placement are "in your half of the table" and "not within 3" of another fortification", the standard rules for where a fortification can be placed. The burden is on YOU to show a rule that says that quad guns are treated differently.

And of course the picture in the book showing the gun NOT touching any wall sections is a pretty clear sign that it doesn't have to follow the rule that the wall sections have to form a continuous chain.

The only possible exception that I can see is in P91 for area terrain. (And this may also be a holdover from earlier editions) If the ADL is set up in a completely enclosed shape the QG can be placed anywhere within the bondaries of the wall.

Where are you getting this rule from? Aegis lines are not area terrain, and there is no rule that says anything at all about them functioning differently depending on whether or not they're in a closed shape.

Peregrin, scince you are only allowed by the rules to place 1 fortification how do you tally the fact that you have placed 2? The ADL & QG?

You haven't. You've placed a single fortification that consists of several independent pieces of plastic.