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.

Which still doesn't answer the question, since the discussion its about fortifications, not units.

It does answer his question.

He wanted to know "Under what circumstances (distance, direction, etc) is an element of a fortification "with" another element of the same fortification."

Being with the fortification is synonymous to stick together, which units do, so there is your parallel.

So youargument is that since the rules don't define it, we should just borrow a rule from elsewhere that seems to fit?

Rorschach9 wrote:
Incorrect. The picture clearly shows it touching the wall section at the "back" of the ADL. Spatial awareness and spatial recognition. Draw a line from the base of the innermost section of the ADL wall through the back of the Quad gun and you will show that it is touching a portion of the wall, as has been shown in the past discussions about this.

Ok, let's do that. We'll draw a line along the edge of the inner segment, and a line along the back edge of the gun emplacement (drawing along the parallel line on the front of the gun and moving it to the back corner since we can't see the back edge). And what do we find?

THE WALL AND GUN ARE NOT TOUCHING.

They are close together, yes, but not in contact.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Incorrect. The picture clearly shows it touching the wall section at the "back" of the ADL. Spatial awareness and spatial recognition. Draw a line from the base of the innermost section of the ADL wall through the back of the Quad gun and you will show that it is touching a portion of the wall, as has been shown in the past discussions about this.

Ok, let's do that. We'll draw a line along the edge of the inner segment, and a line along the back edge of the gun emplacement (drawing along the parallel line on the front of the gun and moving it to the back corner since we can't see the back edge). And what do we find?

THE WALL AND GUN ARE NOT TOUCHING.

They are close together, yes, but not in contact.

You can't see the front line of the quad gun either, so what you're drawing parallel to I don't know.

I have drawn a line along the length of the ADL's base and, lo-and-behold, THE WALL AND GUN ARE TOUCHING. Go figure.

Rorschach9 wrote:
You can't see the front line of the quad gun either, so what you're drawing parallel to I don't know.

Because the gun is a rectangle and you can see the front edge. Drafting/Geometry 101, it's trivial to figure out exactly where the back line of it is. It is parallel to the front edges, starting at the back left corner (which is clearly visible).

I have drawn a line along the length of the ADL's base and, lo-and-behold, THE WALL AND GUN ARE TOUCHING. Go figure.

Because you drew the line wrong. It's not parallel to the piece of the aegis line directly behind the gun, because you're trying to align it with the entire back wall instead of just the relevant section.

 insaniak wrote:
So youargument is that since the rules don't define it, we should just borrow a rule from elsewhere that seems to fit?

How else are we to know?

Similar situation calls for similar rules. This one is not 100% clear, but there are rules that are close, so we have to make due with what we are given.

 DeathReaper wrote:
How else are we to know?

Simple. We read the rules. And in the rules we find that there are two limits on where you can place a fortification, and one limit specific to the aegis line.

1) It must be entirely within your half of the table.

2) It must be more than 3" from any other fortification.

3) The wall segments of an aegis line must form a single unbroken chain.

The gun may then be placed in any location that obeys those three rules. The fact that you don't want your opponent to put the gun on the other side of the table from the wall sections doesn't mean that we have to go hunting for a rule that bans it and assume that we need to approximate one if we can't find it. The proper response it to just accept that no such rule exists.

Similar situation calls for similar rules. This one is not 100% clear, but there are rules that are close, so we have to make due with what we are given.

The rules are perfectly clear. The fact that you don't like what the rules say does not make them any less clear.

Do not ignore that the Gun Emplacement is bought as an option to the ADL...

 Peregrine wrote:
The rules are perfectly clear. The fact that you don't like what the rules say does not make them any less clear.

Seriously, do not claim bias when there is none, it really looks bad for you to do so.

I can no longer take you seriously because you are ascribing bias.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Do not ignore that the Gun Emplacement is bought as an option to the ADL...

I'm not. There is no rule that says an upgrade consisting of a separate model must be placed in any specific area.

I can no longer take you seriously because you are ascribing bias.

I'm ascribing bias because you are biased. You're very clearly determined to shut down something you consider "unfair", and even admit that there's no rule that covers it and you just want to use something vaguely similar to get the desired result.

This thread is about Bastions, not ADL.
Can you stop derailing this thread before a moderator comes in and shoots his Twinlinked Warning-cannon?

 Mandor wrote:

And where are the rules requiring you to place that option on top of the bastion?
Even GW itself doesn't place it on top of the building, but on the ground.

Quote from my rulebook:
"The bastion also has several emplaced weapons: a heavy bolter on each facing and an Icarus lascannon on the roof."

Kangodo wrote:
Quote from my rulebook:
"The bastion also has several emplaced weapons: a heavy bolter on each facing and an Icarus lascannon on the roof."

That quote, unfortunately, has no bearing on the Bastion as it is actually played-- if it did this issue wouldn't be relevant, as the upgrade weapon could be fired by models inside the Bastion.

No further posts about the ADL in this thread, please. Stay on topic.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I can no longer take you seriously because you are ascribing bias.

I'm ascribing bias because you are biased. You're very clearly determined to shut down something you consider "unfair", and even admit that there's no rule that covers it and you just want to use something vaguely similar to get the desired result.

Seriously?

Where did I ever say that I consider the ruling "unfair"

Are you trying to troll?

It will not work if you are...