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.

For the gun emplacement, I think that you would use the "leaping down" rule.

Although technicaly it would be "Falling Off". It really does smooth out the discussion. While a gun emplacement couldn't decide on it's on to leap it can very well fall off of a building that has collapsed.

rigeld2 wrote:
And? Neither of them say you don't embark.
I've cited an FAQ that says you do. The rule book says you do.

Well, actually you have cited an FAQ that says that you disembark from the battlement. It doesn't mention embarking onto the battlement at all.

 insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And? Neither of them say you don't embark.
I've cited an FAQ that says you do. The rule book says you do.

Well, actually you have cited an FAQ that says that you disembark from the battlement. It doesn't mention embarking onto the battlement at all.

Actually page 95 specifies how to embark a battlement.

Which is then muddied by the FAQ which completely changes how battlements work.

The simple fact is that right now the battlement rules are just a mess, thanks to GW deciding to treat them as buildings that aren't buildings.

Agreed. Which is why the only Fortification I use is the ADL.

 insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And? Neither of them say you don't embark.
I've cited an FAQ that says you do. The rule book says you do.

Well, actually you have cited an FAQ that says that you disembark from the battlement. It doesn't mention embarking onto the battlement at all.

Well, if you are disembarking from something, how did you get there to be able to disembark?
Nothing in the other FAQs says you don't have to embark...

rigeld2 wrote:
Well, if you are disembarking from something, how did you get there to be able to disembark?

It grew around you while you slept?

Who knows? We're back in that wonderful world of Keywords that sometimes apply and sometimes don't.

Just say that it falls off!

The rules are terrible and obviously don't cover the situation. We can all agree that an object can fall off of a colapsing building. Problem solved.

If anyone wanted to argue about placement just say that the crew drug the darned thing with them. If it's up there alone, use a scatter die.

Pyrian wrote:
They're neither mobile nor considered your unit.

First off, what the heck is 'mobile'? All models by default are allowed to move 6" in the movement phase and charge in the assault phase. There actually has to be a rule preventing a model from moving to forbid it from doing so. Precisely where is the rule preventing a Gun Emplacement from moving if it is a model?

Second, ALL models must be formed into units (pg 3). If I purchase a Gun Emplacement and its a model (and therefore a unit), again why exactly can't I move it?

And you still have yet to show me what unit type a Gun Emplacement is, if it is actually considered to be a 'model' by the definition of the rules...because if you have a model without a unit type, then you simply cannot play with it, as you have no idea what rules apply to it and which don't.


-----


Finally, to everyone else arguing over how battlements work, the RAW simply do not work. If you look really closely at the rules you'll see pretty clear evidence that at some point battlements worked exactly like another section of a building (so you could actually attack and destroy the battlements separately from the building below it)...but then it seems during development they changed their minds, so you have a mish-mash of rules in that section that just do not make any sense when examined closely, especially with the 'patch' that GW made to Battlements via their FAQ.

IMHO it is a complete waste of time even discussing how battlements work beyond the very simple and obvious situations because the rules simply are not all there.

locally we just play it as the gun going down with the building as it makes the most sense to us. The RAW in this case is so far against common sense that we decided to ignore it for better or worse.

(I figued we were already breaking rules by allowing for bastions/aegis to be placed after terrain as tournaments don't have time to go over piece by piece terrain placement, what's a few more we bend lol)

 Kingsley wrote:
However, the Icarus lascannon or quad-gun purchasable by an Imperial Bastion is not an emplaced gun but rather a gun emplacement.

If my opponent would start to argue this, I would probably pack my stuff and leave.

Why? The rules very clearly differentiate between the two.

If the gun can survive the fall wouldn't it still have to take a dangerous terrain test as it is now in dangerous/impassable terrain (and if it is in impassable and has no jump rule should it not be destroyed since it is not allowed to be there and cannot be placed and thus destroyed?)? I don't rem since I am at work but does it take this test every turn it stays in the rubble? When does the jump unit firing the gun take the tests only leaving and entering or every turn in the rubble? Seems awfully costly to fire this gun if you and your opponent can't agree that the gun is dead anyhow with all the test. I think I'd let my opponent fire it in a friendly game just b/c GW are tools for making emplaced guns and gun emplacements.

I think really this can only be an issue in friendly(and if it is a friendly game why are you fighting over this?) games b/c if you asked any TO judge they would rule the gun is dead.

I guess if were to be allowed it should the falling test and be placed next to the ruin.

Mythra wrote:
If the gun can survive the fall wouldn't it still have to take a dangerous terrain test as it is now in dangerous/impassable terrain (and if it is in impassable and has no jump rule should it not be destroyed since it is not allowed to be there and cannot be placed and thus destroyed?)? I don't rem since I am at work but does it take this test every turn it stays in the rubble? When does the jump unit firing the gun take the tests only leaving and entering or every turn in the rubble? Seems awfully costly to fire this gun if you and your opponent can't agree that the gun is dead anyhow with all the test. I think I'd let my opponent fire it in a friendly game just b/c GW are tools for making emplaced guns and gun emplacements.

I think really this can only be an issue in friendly(and if it is a friendly game why are you fighting over this?) games b/c if you asked any TO judge they would rule the gun is dead.

I guess if were to be allowed it should the falling test and be placed next to the ruin.

You've got it. The darned thing just falls off! How hard is that?

Take the "leap down" test and be done with it. No muss, no fuss. It would end the argument though, and that can't be allowed.

RAW a unit cannot fire a gun emplacement on a destroyed or collapsed battlement because such a situation is not possible.

Pg3 defines a unit as one or more models with a characteristic profile. A gun emplacement is therefore a unit and Pg95 has units on a battlement that has collapsed or been destroyed 'leap down'.

Of course this does present some problems of its own. In reality buildings need a complete overhaul. Say i have a 12 inch tall building with a flat roof. RAW this is a multi part building with the 1st 9 inches being building A, the next 3 are building B, plus the battlements. What happens to a unit on the battlements when building A is destroyed but B is fine?

A gun emplacement is not a unit - it doesn't have a unit composition. All Models have a characteristic profile, but not everything with a characteristic profile is a model.

As multiple posters have pointed out, page 3 goes on to tell us that in addition to a profile, a model has a unit type. Weapon Emplacements do not qualify; they are terrain, not models.

HIWPI- treat the gun emplacement as the Artillery rule since it has the same stats effectively

The rules for Gun Emplacements (a type of Battlefield Debris, which is a category of terrain), are rather different and distinct from the rules for Artillery, which is a unit type.

They represent similar but distinct things. An opponent can never use your Artillary unit, of course.

Yeah, making it a unit is a bit of a stretch and is not with out its own problems.

But if a gun emplacement is terrain, how did it get on the battlements in the 1st place? The multi-part building that is a fortification with a roof and the debris that is a gun emplacement need to be placed 3" or more apart.

I have not seen anything that allows you to actually place one on top of another even if you 'add' one to the other when purchasing a fortification.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Yeah, making it a unit is a bit of a stretch and is not with out its own problems.

But if a gun emplacement is terrain, how did it get on the battlements in the 1st place? The multi-part building that is a fortification with a roof and the debris that is a gun emplacement need to be placed 3" or more apart.

I have not seen anything that allows you to actually place one on top of another even if you 'add' one to the other when purchasing a fortification.

Again, this just comes back to my earlier point about the rules for fortifications, buildings, gun emplacements, etc, being so terrible that you cannot find a clear RAW so it is pointless to even argue about it.

If you look at the example for fortifications on page 97, you see that the Icarus Lascannon is deployed on the roof of the Bastion, but then the example says it is an emplaced weapon. Then you go to the actual entry for a bastion on page 116 and now you see the comms relay sitting next to the Bastion. There is no clear definition of if you're supposed to put these things on the roof, whether you *can* even put them on the roof or if you have to deploy them within a certain distance or what...nobody knows.

Now, the RB FAQ has since made it clear that the gun on the roof is a gun emplacement (not an emplaced gun), so that pretty much tells us that it *can* be deployed on the roof. However, it also says that some building damage results can destroy it...but then if we look at the building damage result tables, everything there is for emplaced weapons (not gun emplacements).

So it seems that the FAQ is implying that it is treated as a gun emplacement, but takes damage from the building damage table like it is an emplaced weapon.


You make the point that if you can't place the gun emplacement within 3" of a fortification because they are two different types of terrain. Of course, not only does the FAQ seem to disagree with that sentiment, but actually fortifications are deployed before terrain is deployed (and remember at that point you could still be playing with narrative terrain set-up OR alternating terrain set-up...you don't technically decide that until after fortifications are deployed) and the only requirements for fortification deployment that they are not within 3" of another fortification and in the player's table half.

I mean, I guess you can try to argue that the Gun Emplacements purchased via a Bastion or Aegis Defense Line are not 'fortifications' as such and therefore aren't deployed along with the fortifications, but if that's the case then again the rules are completely dark about how these pieces would actually get placed...do they then go into the 'pool' that either player may place during alternating deployment?


Its all muck and gobbledegook if you try to play hardcore RAW with any of this.

 yakface wrote:



Its all muck and gobbledegook if you try to play hardcore RAW with any of this.

Agreed.