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.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

That's another problem
One shouldn't come here because his houserules broke a rule and he is wondering how to fix it.
In cases like that we can only tell him how we would play it, since the BRB doesn't cover stuff like "what to do if I changed the rules and now I am in trouble"

Kangodo wrote:

 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.

Infantry, Bikes, and Monstrous Creatures are required to maintain 2" coherency. Vehicles have 4" coherency. Since the ADL is not Infantry/Bike/Monstrous Creature we cannot use the 2" restriction. Since it is not a vehicle we cannot use the 4" restriction.

 Happyjew wrote:
Infantry, Bikes, and Monstrous Creatures are required to maintain 2" coherency. Vehicles have 4" coherency. Since the ADL is not Infantry/Bike/Monstrous Creature we cannot use the 2" restriction. Since it is not a vehicle we cannot use the 4" restriction.

Don't we have tons of rulings where they tell us to treat buildings/fortifications as vehicles? In that case I'd go with the 4".

Kangodo wrote:
That's another problem
One shouldn't come here because his houserules broke a rule and he is wondering how to fix it.
In cases like that we can only tell him how we would play it, since the BRB doesn't cover stuff like "what to do if I changed the rules and now I am in trouble"

The game isn't broken at all. There's nothing wrong with having a gun emplacement on top of a ruin. In fact it's a very fluffy piece of narrative terrain, I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
Don't we have tons of rulings where they tell us to treat buildings/fortifications as vehicles? In that case I'd go with the 4".

1) Buildings, not vehicles. Aegis lines and gun emplacements are battlefield debris, which is just terrain.

2) You treat buildings as vehicles for some purposes, not all purposes. There is no rule that gives any kind of coherency requirement to buildings.

 Peregrine wrote:
The game isn't broken at all. There's nothing wrong with having a gun emplacement on top of a ruin. In fact it's a very fluffy piece of narrative terrain, I think.

The game is broken because he placed terrain before fortifications, which he isn't allowed to do.

1) Buildings, not vehicles. Aegis lines and gun emplacements are battlefield debris, which is just terrain.

2) You treat buildings as vehicles for some purposes, not all purposes. There is no rule that gives any kind of coherency requirement to buildings.

We left the RAW-part behind us when we started to ignore the BRB
All that is left is: How would you play it?
And I am preferring the 4"-thing.

Kangodo wrote:
The game is broken because he placed terrain before fortifications, which he isn't allowed to do.

And we've already established that placing terrain first is a house rule (and a popular one). Once you have accepted the existence of this house rule having a gun emplacement on top of a ruin does not cause any additional problems. In fact it obviously can't cause any problems because it's perfectly legal for me to create a terrain piece that is a ruin with a gun emplacement built into the top level (a nice fluffy idea) and the game will play just fine. So the fact that the exact same gun was placed there as a fortification instead of as part of the terrain piece can't possibly break the game.

Also, you might want to reconsider your idea of "broken". A "broken" game is not one that is being played under a house rule, it's one where things just don't function at all. For example, if someone found a flaw in the rules that prevented either player from deploying their army the game would obviously be broken, and the flaw would have to be ignored or house-ruled away. Merely having a gun emplacement on top of a ruin does not even come close to that level of non-functioning.

We left the RAW-part behind us when we started to ignore the BRB

Not true at all. Having a house rule about one aspect of the game does not require that you ignore RAW everywhere else. For example, if I have a house rule that Tyranids can ally with other Tyranids I am not suddenly obligated to leave RAW behind and consider an argument that lascannons are really supposed to be STR 10.

All that is left is: How would you play it?
And I am preferring the 4"-thing.

Which is your personal house rule and not in any way supported by the rules. Please do not ever attempt to justify it as anything more than your personal opinion, or cite any kind of rule in support of it as if you're just picking a legitimate interpretation to play by.

Peregrine - yet you are basing "perfectly fine" off an already given houserule, creating a situation that could not occur otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peregrine - yet you are basing "perfectly fine" off an already given houserule, creating a situation that could not occur otherwise.

What exactly is your point?

IF you are playing by the house rule it is fine. Having the possibility of gun emplacements on terrain is just a natural consequence of placing terrain before fortifications. If you don't like it then you just need to add an additional house rule that prevents fortifications from being placed within X" of terrain.

However, I really don't see what your objection is. If we're talking about a situation where a house rule is in effect how exactly is it relevant to complain that we're talking about a house rule?

Generally you houserule something to create as little a variance from the rules as needed

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Generally you houserule something to create as little a variance from the rules as needed

Exactly.

The house rule creates as little variance as possible, therefore the only change is the order in which things are placed. Otherwise the rules remain exactly the same, and therefore there is no rule stating that an otherwise-legal location for a gun emplacement suddenly becomes illegal because it's on top of a ruin.

If you want to include an additional house rule that limits how close to a piece of terrain you can place your fortifications then you need MORE variance from the rules.

Or the exact opposite; there is no way normally for an ADL to end up in a ruin, so you dont allow this. You have thus created a houserule that results in something as close to the original rules as possible

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or the exact opposite; there is no way normally for an ADL to end up in a ruin, so you dont allow this. You have thus created a houserule that results in something as close to the original rules as possible

You're confused here.

A house rule only does exactly what it states. It modifies exactly those rules which it says it modifies, and no others. Other than those changes, you play the game by the standard rules. You do NOT randomly also invent a bunch of other rule changes to make the game "as close as possible" to how it used to play, for your personal definition of "close". If a rule now allows you to do X, you don't get to arbitrarily declare that no you can't do X because you don't think it's close enough to the original game. You accept that your house rule has changed X and deal with it. So:

If your house rule consists of "place terrain before fortifications" then that is the ONLY change. You have not added any additional rules restricting where fortifications can be placed, so you can place the gun on top of a ruin.

If you want to ban putting guns on top of ruins then you need to make an ADDITIONAL house rule that says "no guns on top of ruins" and be clear about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
-----------------------------------------------------

Here is an analogy for you.

I'm tired of having my lasgun shots magically disappear at 24", so I make a house rule that says that lasguns now have 30" range. Silly, perhaps, but changing a weapon profile doesn't break the game and we can use that house rule just fine.

I do NOT get to then declare, without making an additional house rule, that now my autocannons have 60" range because they used to have double the range of a lasgun and we need to make the game be as close to it was before the house rule as possible.

Im laughing at this Thread here, so much bickering its Hilarious...

In my FLGS everyone plays alongside the rule that the Gun emplacement has to touch the ADL, this makes perfect sense to us all and is how everyone in out tournaments have played it.

For those who seem to put a Firm stand in their argument as RAW:

Warhammer 40k is not that type of game (warmachine is ), As we have here the Rules for The ADL and "clustering" are not clear now this is where GW wants us to put common sense for clustering as in put close to each other, now in My FLGS to avoid arguments we put it in base to base contact with the Agis, now however if people are still complaining about this rule I would say Place it within unit coherency like troops choices would, why? because it has a model Statline not a Vehicle statline it has wounds not AV so I would say place it within 2" of the terrain, but thats only if people started to argue...

But lets have a think about it, imagine the cheese you would pull of with the gun being placed anywhere on the board you could have it in the corner of the board with an IC or a lone model and just skyfire any flyers on the board, This is why you put it within touching base/unit coherency so that you cant pull off WAAC/Cheesy as hell moves like that...

Aside from that I think people really need to chill about this and stop bending each others words, so here is some Classical music to help you all calm down ...

 happygolucky wrote:
In my FLGS everyone plays alongside the rule that the Gun emplacement has to touch the ADL, this makes perfect sense to us all and is how everyone in out tournaments have played it.

So you impose a house rule that even GW doesn't follow? Look at the picture in the book, even ignoring the rule text the gun emplacement is clearly not touching any of the wall sections.

As we have here the Rules for The ADL and "clustering" are not clear

No, the rules are perfectly clear. Some people don't like what they say, but that's entirely different from the rules being unclear.

I would say Place it within unit coherency like troops choices would, why? because it has a model Statline not a Vehicle statline it has wounds not AV so I would say place it within 2" of the terrain, but thats only if people started to argue...

Why do we need to use this house rule instead of using the actual rules of the game?

But lets have a think about it, imagine the cheese you would pull of with the gun being placed anywhere on the board you could have it in the corner of the board with an IC or a lone model and just skyfire any flyers on the board,

So, let me get this straight:

Gun emplacement terrain feature with defense lines, placed as a "cluster" of battlefield debris during the "alternating terrain placement" method for setting up the table = fine.

Gun emplacement in the exact same spot, but placed during the fortification step as part of an aegis line = cheese.

Not that it's really cheese anyway, since the gun can't block LOS entirely, and even if it did it would also block the firing model's LOS to the flyer and make it impossible to shoot. If you can't handle a quad gun in the corner then it's your fault as a player, not the game's fault.

This is why you put it within touching base/unit coherency so that you cant pull off WAAC/Cheesy as hell moves like that...

You can place the gun there anyway. Even if we follow your silly house rule about being in contact with the aegis line you can STILL put a gun in the corner, you just have to put your aegis line in that corner as well. So even if it is "cheese" your house rule still allows the exact same "cheese".

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Can you please point out where it tells us in any rule book or errata that the Quad gun is a fortification as opposed to an Option (an additional weapon, wargear or upgrade, as per the definition in the rules) that is taken as part of a purchased fortification, outside of simply re-stating your interpretation?

Additionally;

Aegis Defense Line : Terrain Type:Battlefield Debris (Defence lines). Can battlefield debris be placed on top of other terrain? (Using your assumption that the gun is a "fortification" (which is not mentioned in any rules as such) as it is purchased with the ADL, it must therefore also be classed as Terrain Type:Battlefield Debris (Defence lines))



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

1) Buildings, not vehicles. Aegis lines and gun emplacements are battlefield debris, which is just terrain.

So you can place terrain ON TOP OF other terrain??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

So you impose a house rule that even GW doesn't follow? Look at the picture in the book, even ignoring the rule text the gun emplacement is clearly not touching any of the wall sections.
.

Untrue, untrue, untrue. Draw a line along the base of the ADL and along the back side of the quad gun and you will find that it is touching.
This has been brought up before and shown that the "clearly not touching" is blatantly untrue.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Can you please point out where it tells us in any rule book or errata that the Quad gun is a fortification as opposed to an Option (an additional weapon, wargear or upgrade, as per the definition in the rules) that is taken as part of a purchased fortification, outside of simply re-stating your interpretation?

I won't point it out, because I didn't say that the gun itself is a fortification. It is part of a fortification, as you can clearly see from the model, the picture in the book, and the rules for how you obtain one. You're asking a question which makes about as much sense as demanding proof that a tactical squad sergeant is a troops model.

Aegis Defense Line : Terrain Type:Battlefield Debris (Defence lines). Can battlefield debris be placed on top of other terrain? (Using your assumption that the gun is a "fortification" (which is not mentioned in any rules as such) as it is purchased with the ADL, it must therefore also be classed as Terrain Type:Battlefield Debris (Defence lines))

Yes it can be placed on top of other terrain. The rules define where you can place a fortification, and nowhere does it say anything about not being able to place them on top of any terrain that exists in the area where they can be placed. Therefore terrain is treated no differently than any other space in the table half.

So you can place terrain ON TOP OF other terrain??

Yes, because the rules define where you can place things and do not say "unless it's on top of other terrain".

Rorschach9 wrote:
Untrue, untrue, untrue. Draw a line along the base of the ADL and along the back side of the quad gun and you will find that it is touching.
This has been brought up before and shown that the "clearly not touching" is blatantly untrue.

Wrong. I already posted the picture in the other similar thread. Note that the line along the back edge of the quad gun and the line along the inner edge of the wall do NOT touch at any point. It is very close to the back wall, but clearly NOT touching it.

Even GW referred the gun emplacement as being attached to the ADL in the FAQ. I left the thread because at this point, it sounds like one guy who has been placing his cannon anywhere he wants it doesn't like the idea that he may be taking advantage of a poorly-written rule and is vehemently defending it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Untrue, untrue, untrue. Draw a line along the base of the ADL and along the back side of the quad gun and you will find that it is touching.
This has been brought up before and shown that the "clearly not touching" is blatantly untrue.

Wrong. I already posted the picture in the other similar thread. Note that the line along the back edge of the quad gun and the line along the inner edge of the wall do NOT touch at any point. It is very close to the back wall, but clearly NOT touching it.

Hmm. Not according to my line drawn across the entire ADL and the back of the Quad gun. They are together.
And I'm not quite sure how you're finding the back right corner of the Quad Gun that is not even visible in order to draw a line. You can't see the front of the quad gun's base either to draw a line parallel. However, drawing a line across the length of the ADL's base shows it touches at the back left corner (if not for the jutting out section at that particular point)

And besides, you continue to make personal assumptions about other things to support your position anyway, as pointed out several times.

Rorschach9 wrote:

In this picture, it looks like it could easily be touching the indention of the wall with the back of the gun.

Flame war pause:

ADL in referenced pictures are in full circles so QG can be placed anywhere in that circle;

Faq mentioned is "Can you shoot a gun emplacement attached to an aegis defence line?" "yes - see page 105...."
GW not explicitly saying that it has to be attached but saying it can be attached to the gun line

Flame war play.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Hmm. Not according to my line drawn across the entire ADL and the back of the Quad gun.

Why are you drawing the line across the entire back wall, along sections which can't possibly be in contact with the gun?

The most likely explanation is that one of the sections on the right of the picture is at a slight angle, so extending a line along it hits the quad gun. If you draw the line along the piece of aegis line (a single piece of plastic) directly behind the gun, the only piece it could possibly touch, it doesn't intersect.

And I'm not quite sure how you're finding the back right corner of the Quad Gun that is not even visible in order to draw a line.

Easily. At the angle in the picture you can see the entire left edge of the gun, including where it ends in a 90* corner. You can't see the back edge itself, but you CAN see the point where it begins, draw a parallel line across the front edge (since the gun is a rectangle), and move it to start at that point. If you've ever done any drafting/CAD work it's pretty obvious what I'm doing.

I suppose I could increase the size to make it clearer, but quite honestly Pictures are not rules anyway. And besides, you continue to make personal assumptions about other things to support your position anyway, as pointed out several times.

You're right. Pictures aren't rules. But when RAW there is no "must touch" rule and you're trying to argue that RAI GW meant for them to touch it's pretty compelling evidence that GW didn't intend for them to touch based on the rulebook picture of them not touching.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:
In this picture, it looks like it could easily be touching the indention of the wall with the back of the gun.

Only because the line is drawn incorrectly across the entire back wall instead of only the relevant wall segment. If you look at the picture I posted earlier, using only the relevant wall section, it clearly doesn't touch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:
Even GW referred the gun emplacement as being attached to the ADL in the FAQ. I left the thread because at this point, it sounds like one guy who has been placing his cannon anywhere he wants it doesn't like the idea that he may be taking advantage of a poorly-written rule and is vehemently defending it.

GW's FAQ refers to the wall sections, not the gun. It says nothing at all about the gun.

 Yarrick The Necron wrote:

GW not explicitly saying that it has to be attached but saying it can be attached to the gun line

True, but why even mention it being attached at all? If it does not have to be attached, just ask, "Can you fire at the gun emplacement of an ADL?"

The point is, if you can attach it to the ADL, then precedent is set for how gun emplacements are supposed to be fielded. There is no "attach it or not". GW posing the question about shooting at an attached gun emplacement indicates that the gun emplacements are supposed to be attached.

Edit: In fact, the language they use doesn't even suggest it could be anything but attached. The FAQ question doesn't say, "a gun emplacement that is attached. . " or "a gun emplacement that could be attached. . "

It simply says: "a gun emplacement attached to an. . ."

As if there's no other alternative.

To be fair I personaly do not think the image means anything in regards to this rules discussion other than its just shows the contets of the ADL mainly because it dose not say anywhere in the rules "refer to the Image"...

Just my opinion here...

 Peregrine wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Hmm. Not according to my line drawn across the entire ADL and the back of the Quad gun.

Why are you drawing the line across the entire back wall, along sections which can't possibly be in contact with the gun?

The most likely explanation is that one of the sections on the right of the picture is at a slight angle, so extending a line along it hits the quad gun. If you draw the line along the piece of aegis line (a single piece of plastic) directly behind the gun, the only piece it could possibly touch, it doesn't intersect.

Because the back is clearly (as the straight line shows) in a STRAIGHT LINE. Not at any slight angle. The STRAIGHT LINE shows they are in a straight line.

And I'm not quite sure how you're finding the back right corner of the Quad Gun that is not even visible in order to draw a line.

Easily. At the angle in the picture you can see the entire left edge of the gun, including where it ends in a 90* corner. You can't see the back edge itself, but you CAN see the point where it begins, draw a parallel line across the front edge (since the gun is a rectangle), and move it to start at that point. If you've ever done any drafting/CAD work it's pretty obvious what I'm doing.

I suppose I could increase the size to make it clearer, but quite honestly Pictures are not rules anyway. And besides, you continue to make personal assumptions about other things to support your position anyway, as pointed out several times.

You're right. Pictures aren't rules. But when RAW there is no "must touch" rule and you're trying to argue that RAI GW meant for them to touch it's pretty compelling evidence that GW didn't intend for them to touch based on the rulebook picture of them not touching.

I'm not arguing RAI that they must touch. I'm trying to find where RAW they can be placed outside of the fortification piece it was purchased as an option for. I'm not even going to bother with the picture at this point .. I've shown it touches using only visible pieces of the ADL and Quad Gun. You refute that based on assumptions as to where portions of the piece are that you cannot even see.

 Peregrine wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:
In this picture, it looks like it could easily be touching the indention of the wall with the back of the gun.

Only because the line is drawn incorrectly across the entire back wall instead of only the relevant wall segment. If you look at the picture I posted earlier, using only the relevant wall section, it clearly doesn't touch.

Dude, those are the exact same picture. Forget the lines. Look at the back of the gun and the wall indention in the back of the ADL. Those could easily be touching.

 Peregrine wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:
Even GW referred the gun emplacement as being attached to the ADL in the FAQ. I left the thread because at this point, it sounds like one guy who has been placing his cannon anywhere he wants it doesn't like the idea that he may be taking advantage of a poorly-written rule and is vehemently defending it.

GW's FAQ refers to the wall sections, not the gun. It says nothing at all about the gun.

 happygolucky wrote:
To be fair I personaly do not think the image means anything in regards to this rules discussion other than its just shows the contets of the ADL mainly because it dose not say anywhere in the rules "refer to the Image"...

Just my opinion here...

You are absolutely correct. Photos are taken by Photographers, not the designers of the games. They are (industry standard) taken to show the product. There are far too many examples that show photos of game products set up in a way that it is not to be used in game because the photographer thought it would look better that way. Unless you are specifically refered to a photograph as an example of how a rule is meant to be used, you cannot assume the photograph has any bearing at all on the rules.

Rorschach9 wrote:


I'm not arguing RAI that they must touch. I'm trying to find where RAW they can be placed outside of the fortification piece it was purchased as an option for.

Exactly. This is the point everyone keeps missing. When I flip to a Baal predator. . it says "May take the following:" That includes a side sponson. How do I know where to put the side sponson?

I haven't altered the model of the Baal - side sponsons are not included on the model. So, if I haven't altered the model, and I purchased something that it said I may purchase, how do I know where it goes?

I use common sense and I put the side sponsons on the model that it was purchased for: the baal predator. I do not try to say that I can place the side sponsons anywhere I want, simply because they were purchased as an option.

So my question here is why is everyone using paint to paint lines on the picture of the ADL when quite clearly this particular picture has nothing to do with the rules just shows the contents of what you get when you buy an ADL?

Rorschach9 wrote:
Because the back is clearly (as the straight line shows) in a STRAIGHT LINE. Not at any slight angle. The STRAIGHT LINE shows they are in a straight line.

Not necessarily. The back wall is two pieces of plastic, that aren't necessarily in perfect parallel alignment. You're drawing the line in the wrong place and trying to follow a part that isn't relevant to the discussion.

I'm not arguing RAI that they must touch. I'm trying to find where RAW they can be placed outside of the fortification piece it was purchased as an option for.

Define "outside the fortification". Under exactly which conditions is a gun "outside" the fortification and "inside" the fortification.

When answering this question please keep in mind the fact that the aegis line does not have to form a closed shape.

You refute that based on assumptions as to where portions of the piece are that you cannot even see.

Because I understand how geometry works. The two pieces are not touching.

 puma713 wrote:
Dude, those are the exact same picture. Forget the lines. Look at the back of the gun and the wall indention in the back of the ADL. Those could easily be touching.

No they can't. I already posted the picture clearly demonstrating that they do NOT touch. There is no guessing involved here.

"Attached", as in "purchased as part of the same fortification". If it meant to refer to a gun touching an aegis line it would say "in contact with".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 happygolucky wrote:
So my question here is why is everyone using paint to paint lines on the picture of the ADL when quite clearly this particular picture has nothing to do with the rules just shows the contents of what you get when you buy an ADL?

Because some people are trying to argue that GW intended it to have to be placed touching the wall, even if RAW they left a loophole. The picture demonstrates that, since GW set it up with the gun NOT touching the wall, this was not an intended requirement.