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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
My only issue is that the ADL consists of 0-4 short and long sections. The gun/relay are optional, and I don't recall them being referred to as "sections".

The Optional equipment for the ADL are not referred to in the "composition" of the ADL because they are not always there.

If you take one of the options they are a part of the ADL.

I can't argue that the options are not part of the ADL. And I can see the sense in treating them as a "section" and hence enforcing the base contact requirement. However, I'm struggling to find a GW picture where a gun IS in base contact (p89, p104 - twice, p114). I know pictures aren't rules, but if they are any indication, GW seem to allow some flexibility in the exact placement of Quad Guns, etc. That said, it doesn't seem right to allow the options to be deployed miles from the ADL.

Maybe the The Most Important Rule (p5) applies?

Two people have used the exact same picture with lines drawn in to show that the Quad-gun touches and does not touch the wall. While I'm of the opinion that the Gun Emplacement/Comm Relay does not need to be in "base" contact with the ADL,, it does have to be within a reasonable distance of it.

The person who drew a line on the pic from page 114, purporting to show that it was NOT in contact failed to account for the extra distance the control panel sticks out the back of the base. I'm definitely in favor of requiring contact, both because I believe the preponderance of the evidence supports it, and because otherwise we're left with no guidance as to how far is reasonable. Contact is a nice clean rule. Even if you feel that it's ambiguous, good sportsmanship normally defaults to accepting the less-powerful interpretation of an ambiguous case.

The pic on page 89 can reasonably be concluded to be just placed terrain, not a purchased fortification, as there are a total of four items (two bastions and two defense lines) on the SM side which could be either purchased fortifications or just placed terrain not belonging to either player. Obviously most, and potentially all, of them are not purchased Fortifications, because you're only allowed to take one. Placed terrain not belonging to a player isn't necessaril subject to the fortification-specific rules on pages 114-117.

This is all amazing info!

So much to digest. Thanks for all the feedback and comments

 Cheesedoodler wrote:

rathkoron wrote:
Here is how I have always played it:

All Fortifications are set up after Terrain. First Player to deploy sets up his, then second player sets up theirs.

Next, you must place all sections of your Aegis Defence Line in contact with one another, including the Quad Gun.

Finally, anyone can use a fortification if they are on it and fire is coming from a direction where any part of the line would give a cover save. You must a model within 2" to fire the Quad Gun.

This being the case, you are playing it very wrong. Almost everything you've said is incorrect.

3) The quad gun does *NOT* have to be touching the ADL. You may place it anywhere within 3" of any section of the line.

Please re-read the rulebook, and the rules for YMDC.

When a poster makes it clear that they are about to say something as HIWPI, I find that to be quite appropriate to YMDC. There's not enough HIWPI in this forum, and hearing how other reasonable players deal with poorly-constructed GW rules in a game setting (not in a forum RAW shouting match, which I shall henceforth refer to as a RAWR) is helpful. And also, as others have pointed out, Cheesy's #3 is just plain crazy.

 Mannahnin wrote:
There are two FAQ questions in the BRB FAQ about the Aegis. One of them refers to the upgrades as “attached”. Since we’re talking about an inanimate object here, the applicable meaning we have for “attached” is “physically connected to”. It’s not like the gun has an emotional attachment to the wall.

You're missing the third meaning: attached in an organizational sense. For example, an independent character attached to a unit is not necessarily in physical contact with the unit (it must be in 2" coherency, but the coherency limit is a consequence of being attached, not part of "attached" itself). Under this meaning it is sufficient for the gun to be purchased along with the wall, and implies no physical relationship between the two models.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'm definitely in favor of requiring contact, both because I believe the preponderance of the evidence supports it, and because otherwise we're left with no guidance as to how far is reasonable.

It's not true at all that we have no guidance. We have explicit guidance: the gun can be anywhere in your half of the table and more than 3" from any other fortifications. What you meant to say is that we don't have guidance that gets the result you want to have. The fact that the rules allow something you don't personally like (which causes no problems at all rules-wise) doesn't mean that we should assume that it's really meant to work another way.

 Happyjew wrote:
While I'm of the opinion that the Gun Emplacement/Comm Relay does not need to be in "base" contact with the ADL,, it does have to be within a reasonable distance of it.

Define "reasonable". And then support it with something other than your arbitrary choice of a "reasonable" distance.

When a poster makes it clear that they are about to say something as HIWPI, I find that to be quite appropriate to YMDC. There's not enough HIWPI in this forum, and hearing how other reasonable players deal with poorly-constructed GW rules in a game setting (not in a forum RAW shouting match, which I shall henceforth refer to as a RAWR) is helpful.

I completely agree that How Would You Play It is a legitimate thing to discuss here, but you want to be clear.

While rathkoron did preface his remarks by saying "here's how I've always played it", I don't think that's quite as explicit as saying "I find that the rules do not work for the following reasons, or as has been already discussed, therefore this is how my group chooses to play it. "

The details he gave on how he plays it seemed like a mix of actual deliberate house rules (like placing fortifications after terrain, which is a reasonable house rule if your group doesn't like alternating placement), and misunderstandings about how the rules actually work (like that being able to fire a Gun Emplacement from 2" away thing).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
There are two FAQ questions in the BRB FAQ about the Aegis. One of them refers to the upgrades as “attached”. Since we’re talking about an inanimate object here, the applicable meaning we have for “attached” is “physically connected to”. It’s not like the gun has an emotional attachment to the wall.

You're missing the third meaning: attached in an organizational sense. For example, an independent character attached to a unit is not necessarily in physical contact with the unit (it must be in 2" coherency, but the coherency limit is a consequence of being attached, not part of "attached" itself). Under this meaning it is sufficient for the gun to be purchased along with the wall, and implies no physical relationship between the two models.

Find me an example of "attached in an organizational sense" being applied in a real life context to two objects. I don't believe that you can. Therefore I believe you're misapplying that definition to a context in which it is inapplicable.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'm definitely in favor of requiring contact, both because I believe the preponderance of the evidence supports it, and because otherwise we're left with no guidance as to how far is reasonable.

It's not true at all that we have no guidance. We have explicit guidance: the gun can be anywhere in your half of the table and more than 3" from any other fortifications.

The rules tell us that an Aegis Defense line is composed of a defined number of sections, which must be placed contiguously, and optionally may also include a comms relay or gun emplacement. The rules in the fortification entry do not specify whether the options must also be so, but the BRB FAQ contains the following indicative Q&A:

Q: Can you shoot at a gun emplacement attached to an Aegis defence line? (p114)
A: Yes – see page 105 for a gun emplacement’s profile.

GW regularly includes useful rules information in the Question parts of their FAQs as well as the answerr, as with the Mad Dok Grotsnik ruling where it's the Question which tells us that vehicles can't get the Cybork upgrade. This ruling tells us that the gun emplacement is attached. In English, when referring to objects being "attached", we mean physically.

 Peregrine wrote:
What you meant to say is that we don't have guidance that gets the result you want to have. The fact that the rules allow something you don't personally like (which causes no problems at all rules-wise) doesn't mean that we should assume that it's really meant to work another way.

Attributing dishonesty and bad faith motives to the other parties with whom you are discussing rules is both a violation of the Tenets of You Make Da Call, and a violation of Dakka's Rule #1. This is the friendliest warning you're going to get. If you had posted that to a non-Moderator, I'd have suspended you already. I'm cutting you slack to be nice.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Find me an example of "attached in an organizational sense" being applied in a real life context to two objects. I don't believe that you can. Therefore I believe you're misapplying that definition to a context in which it is inapplicable.

Easily. I do 3d modeling and you often attach objects to other objects. This attachment does not require physical contact between the objects (for example, you could attach all the tires on a car model to a single object), it's purely an organizational thing that allows you to select/modify/move the attached object(s) along with the parent object.

So, under this definition of "attached" a gun placed 4' away from the wall is attached to the wall because it is part of the same fortification as the wall it was purchased with (it is placed at the same time, a hypothetical attack that removed a fortification would remove both the gun and the wall, etc).

This ruling tells us that the gun emplacement is attached. In English, when referring to objects being "attached", we mean physically.

No we don't. See above.

Attributing dishonesty and bad faith motives to the other parties with whom you are discussing rules is both a violation of the Tenets of You Make Da Call, and a violation of Dakka's Rule #1. This is the friendliest warning you're going to get. If you had posted that to a non-Moderator, I'd have suspended you already. I'm cutting you slack to be nice.

Well, then it's a good thing that I never attributed dishonesty or bad faith motives to anyone. I said that you were wrong and that you were making a mistake in what you said, I never accused you of being dishonest or acting in bad faith.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Find me an example of "attached in an organizational sense" being applied in a real life context to two objects. I don't believe that you can. Therefore I believe you're misapplying that definition to a context in which it is inapplicable.

Easily. I do 3d modeling and you often attach objects to other objects. This attachment does not require physical contact between the objects (for example, you could attach all the tires on a car model to a single object), it's purely an organizational thing that allows you to select/modify/move the attached object(s) along with the parent object.

Those aren't physical objects, though. They can't be physically attached, only associated within the software. That's like an email attachment. We use the word "attach" for connecting one file to another in a software context, but that's still different than attaching one real world meatspace object to one another.

Can you find an example involving solid physical objects?

 Peregrine wrote:

Attributing dishonesty and bad faith motives to the other parties with whom you are discussing rules is both a violation of the Tenets of You Make Da Call, and a violation of Dakka's Rule #1. This is the friendliest warning you're going to get. If you had posted that to a non-Moderator, I'd have suspended you already. I'm cutting you slack to be nice.

Well, then it's a good thing that I never attributed dishonesty or bad faith motives to anyone. I said that you were wrong and that you were making a mistake in what you said, I never accused you of being dishonest or acting in bad faith.

Your words are there in black and white for folks to read. No use pretending they say something else. When a person argues a point because they don't like what the rules say, and they want a specific desired outcome, rather than because they believe that's what the rules actually say, that's dishonest debate with an ulterior motive. That's the accusation you made.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Can you find an example involving solid physical objects?

Why should we have to work within that arbitrary constraint (which obviously rules out any non-physical interpretation)? The rules don't say anything about using "attached" in a physical sense rather than an organizational one, and all of the rules and FAQs make perfect sense if you interpret "attached" to be a purely organizational relationship.

Now, the existence of multiple meanings for "attached" doesn't prove that there isn't a "physical contact" requirement, but it does completely destroy the argument that because the rules use "attached" there must be physical contact.

Your words are there in black and white for folks to read. No use pretending they say something else. When a person argues a point because they don't like what the rules say, and they want a specific desired outcome, rather than because they believe that's what the rules actually say, that's dishonest debate with an ulterior motive. That's the accusation you made.

And what you overlook is that I was accusing you of having a sincere belief, not a dishonest one. IMO you are arguing based on an incorrect assumption that the rules are somehow broken if the quad gun has no distance limits, and therefore we must interpret the rules in such a way that they give reasonable guidance on a distance limit. However, since the rules are not in fact broken (merely undesirable according to some people) your statement was a mistake, and you should have said X instead. No bad faith or dishonesty is required for you to make that argument, therefore no accusation was made.

BTW, you openly admitted that you favor that interpretation because it gives the "reasonable guidance" you want to have.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Can you find an example involving solid physical objects?

Why should we have to work within that arbitrary constraint (which obviously rules out any non-physical interpretation)? The rules don't say anything about using "attached" in a physical sense rather than an organizational one, and all of the rules and FAQs make perfect sense if you interpret "attached" to be a purely organizational relationship.

It's not arbitrary. We're talking about two physical objects on the table. That's the context we have. The context of "attached" in the sense of an organizational relationship applies to people, to military units, to files in software, but not to objects. And we're talking about objects.

 Peregrine wrote:

Your words are there in black and white for folks to read. No use pretending they say something else. When a person argues a point because they don't like what the rules say, and they want a specific desired outcome, rather than because they believe that's what the rules actually say, that's dishonest debate with an ulterior motive. That's the accusation you made.

And what you overlook is that I was accusing you of having a sincere belief, not a dishonest one. IMO you are arguing based on an incorrect assumption that the rules are somehow broken if the quad gun has no distance limits, and therefore we must interpret the rules in such a way that they give reasonable guidance on a distance limit. However, since the rules are not in fact broken (merely undesirable according to some people) your statement was a mistake, and you should have said X instead. No bad faith or dishonesty is required for you to make that argument, therefore no accusation was made.

BTW, you openly admitted that you favor that interpretation because it gives the "reasonable guidance" you want to have.

I stated quite clearly that I advocate this position because the rules are at least slightly ambiguous, but that a preponderance of the evidence supports physical contact. You claimed that in fact I argue it because I dislike what the rules say. Implicit in your statement is the premise that I actually understand the rules to mean what you say they mean, but am arguing otherwise out of preference.

I also further explained that this interpretation, even if a given reader finds the evidence for contact to be more tenuous than I do, is preferable because it is clear and avoids the possibility of taking an unintended advantage.

 Mannahnin wrote:
It's not arbitrary. We're talking about two physical objects on the table. That's the context we have. The context of "attached" in the sense of an organizational relationship applies to people, to military units, to files in software, but not to objects. And we're talking about objects.

Except we're NOT just talking about physical objects. There are no physical objects on the table when an "attached" quad gun is purchased in list construction. And there is nothing in the rules or FAQs that explicitly says we're talking about attachment in a physical sense, or that doesn't make sense if we use it in the organizational sense. Therefore you can't just arbitrarily declare that it can only be the physical relationship.

To give the most extreme example: you can deploy up to the given number of wall segments, which means it is possible to deploy no wall segments at all. In that case, unless you want to make up a ruling that you can't deploy the gun unless you deploy at least one wall section, your "attached" gun can not possibly be physically attached to anything.

I stated quite clearly that I advocate this position because the rules are at least slightly ambiguous, but that a preponderance of the evidence supports physical contact. You claimed that in fact I argue it because I dislike what the rules say.

Now how about quoting your entire statement, not just the part about preponderance of evidence.

I'm definitely in favor of requiring contact, both because I believe the preponderance of the evidence supports it, and because otherwise we're left with no guidance as to how far is reasonable.

You openly admit that it isn't just about preponderance of evidence, and that you favor your interpretation because it addresses your perceived need for there to be guidance (beyond "anywhere on the table") on how far is reasonable.

Implicit in your statement is the premise that I actually understand the rules to mean what you say they mean, but am arguing otherwise out of preference.

That is not implicit at all. Please don't put words in my mouth, especially because your statement about "preponderance of evidence" makes it perfectly clear that you DON'T understand the rules to mean what I say they mean.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
It's not arbitrary. We're talking about two physical objects on the table. That's the context we have. The context of "attached" in the sense of an organizational relationship applies to people, to military units, to files in software, but not to objects. And we're talking about objects.

Except we're NOT just talking about physical objects. There are no physical objects on the table when an "attached" quad gun is purchased in list construction.

The word "attached" is only used in reference to the terrain pieces on the table. It's a question about targeting the gun with shooting during play. It's not a reference to its organizational relationship in the army list; for that purpose they're just referred to as "options", of which you can "add one".

 Peregrine wrote:
[And there is nothing in the rules or FAQs that explicitly says we're talking about attachment in a physical sense, or that doesn't make sense if we use it in the organizational sense. Therefore you can't just arbitrarily declare that it can only be the physical relationship.

Apparently you're not looking at the FAQ. The question is basically "Can I shoot at gun that's attached to an aegis fortification?" And the answer is "Yes". The context is quite clear that we're talking about the physical things on the table and how they're attacked during the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Now how about quoting your entire statement, not just the part about preponderance of evidence.

I'm definitely in favor of requiring contact, both because I believe the preponderance of the evidence supports it, and because otherwise we're left with no guidance as to how far is reasonable.

You openly admit that it isn't just about preponderance of evidence, and that you favor your interpretation because it addresses your perceived need for there to be guidance (beyond "anywhere on the table") on how far is reasonable.

You're taking that statement out of context and distorting the meaning. That was a direct response to Happyjew's statement that the gun has to be placed a "reasonable" distance away from the wall. I was pointing out the problem with playing it that way- that there is no rule saying what's reasonable, so it's inviting conflict when his sense of what's reasonable differs from his opponent's.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Apparently you're not looking at the FAQ. The question is basically "Can I shoot at gun that's attached to an aegis fortification?" And the answer is "Yes". The context is quite clear that we're talking about the physical things on the table and how they're attacked during the game.

No, that is absolutely NOT clear. We have two possible interpretations of the statement:

1) Can I shoot at a gun that is {physically in contact with} an aegis line?

and

2) Can I shoot at a gun that is {purchased as part of the same fortification} as an aegis line?

And, in fact, the second one is the more reasonable of the two:

Option #1 makes sense gramatically, but the restriction of physical contact is redundant. You can shoot at gun emplacements in general, so why should physically touching a section of aegis wall make a difference (after all, nobody would ask if you can still shoot at an enemy model that is in contact with an aegis wall)? And does this mean that if you don't deploy any of the wall sections the gun is invulnerable because it isn't touching a wall?

Option #2 makes the most sense because the organizational attachment is very relevant. You can shoot at gun emplacements that are placed as part of the terrain, but you might reasonably ask whether gun emplacements being organizationally attached to an aegis line (which itself can NOT be shot at) have different rules. Or you might ask whether you can still shoot at your own gun (say, if your opponent hijacks it) even though it is organizationally attached to your own fortification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
You're taking that statement out of context and distorting the meaning. That was a direct response to Happyjew's statement that the gun has to be placed a "reasonable" distance away from the wall. I was pointing out the problem with playing it that way- that there is no rule saying what's reasonable, so it's inviting conflict when his sense of what's reasonable differs from his opponent's.

And, as said by PM, nothing in that statement indicated that it was a direct reply to a particular poster and their specific situation rather than being a general ruling. Now that you mention it I see that it immediately followed a relevant post, but the convention for a direct reply is to quote the statement you're replying to.

rathkoron wrote:
All Fortifications are set up after Terrain. First Player to deploy sets up his, then second player sets up theirs.


This is a workable house rule, but of course it's not the rulebook process.

The problem with this is (especially in tournaments) they have the tables set up in a fair and balanced manner before you even get there.

At the place I play at if you end up having a Fortification that just takes up too much space on the table, then you move terrain around or off the table.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Cheesedoodler wrote:
3) The quad gun does *NOT* have to be touching the ADL. You may place it anywhere within 3" of any section of the line.

This is completely false. There is no rule specifying any maximum distance between the gun and the nearest wall section, RAW you can place the wall in one corner of your deployment zone and the gun 5' away in the opposite corner. In fact, RAW you don't have to deploy any wall sections at all, so the gun can go anywhere you want. Now, you may not make many friends by doing this and a 3" limit is probably a reasonable house rule if you and your opponent want to agree on that, but that's an entirely different subject from RAW.

Well then crap, the TO at my last tournament said that the 3" from the line was in a recent FAQ, and I took his word for it.

 Cheesedoodler wrote:
Well then crap, the TO at my last tournament said that the 3" from the line was in a recent FAQ, and I took his word for it.

Yep, your TO was either wrong or lying (I'll let you decide which). The only relevant FAQ is that the wall sections must form a single unbroken chain, so even if you interpret it to apply to the gun (IMO it doesn't) it requires the gun to be in contact with a wall section. There is certainly no FAQ that defines a 3" distance, or any other specific distance.

I need to ask: If the models are in base to base with the aegis defenseline but not tall enough to see over do they give a coversave to the opponent? Including the gunemplacement? I have the same problem witv the bastion. I can not justefy using my icarus lascannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I need to ask: If the models are in base to base with the aegis defenseline but not tall enough to see over do they give a coversave to the opponent? Including the gunemplacement? I have the same problem witv the bastion. I can not justefy using my icarus lascannon.

 Niiai wrote:
I need to ask: If the models are in base to base with the aegis defenseline but not tall enough to see over do they give a coversave to the opponent? Including the gunemplacement? I have the same problem witv the bastion. I can not justefy using my icarus lascannon.

Yes. In fact, if your models cannot see over (ie: cannot see the opposing unit) you can't even fire at them at all as you don't have Line of Sight to them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the rest of it .. round and round we go (again), where it stops, nobody knows.

Take one side for placement of the ADL and it's upgrades and play it that way as long as your opponent (or TO) agrees. The endless arguements over the ADL sections and gun emplacements is maddening. (fwiw I interpret it as the upgrades must be in phsyical contact with the wall sections)

Ok, I don't want to read through the arguments in this thread.

Am I correct in saying;

>A: Place fortifications after terrain, because placing it before terrain makes no logical sense and terrain is typically pre-set before tournaments so placing fortifications would require moving the terrain from the board an feth it, you place after terrain, I don't care what that other guy says

>B: Rulebook says "each segment of wall must be touching at least one other segment" ergo you can place the wall as a number of seperate smaller wall segments. Also in line with common sense. (pg114)

>C: Quad Gun, etc, must be attached to the wall as it is an "add-on" for the wall and not some random extra gun emplacement on the board

>D: Models must be touching the Quad gun, not 3" away or whatever, because "blah blah model in base contact can fire the gun (pg105)"

>E: Models get 4+ cover from this stuff if 25% or more of their body is obscured from LoS of the dude firing at them.

F: (I hate this one) Blast templates striking behind the wall to hit the dudes hidden behind it will bypass its cover save

With all due respect:

You people are derailing another thread while we have a dozen threads open on this subject, even on the same page.
And a Moderator should know better

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/518779.page

>B: Rulebook says "each segment of wall must be touching at least one other segment" ergo you can place the wall as a number of seperate smaller wall segments. Also in line with common sense. (pg114)

Unless we have a different rulebook, it actually says that each section must be touching another one. Nowhere does it say "a segment of wall".

F: (I hate this one) Blast templates striking behind the wall to hit the dudes hidden behind it will bypass its cover save

Where did you find this one?
I thought that they always receive cover unless it has the "ignores cover" rule.

G: If you Go to Ground, they receive a 2+ cover save, but fire only snapshots. Ideally for Orks

Sorry, someone linked this and I thought it was the "how the feth does the ADL work" thread.

it actually says that each section must be touching another one. Nowhere does it say "a segment of wall".

Same thing.

Where did you find this one?

I read it somewhere. I hate this rule because I can just picture like a Manticore bombing my dudes behind the wall and laughing at their cancelled cover saves.

Well, normal blasts don't ignore cover.
flame templates do and I'm not sure about barrages.

"Same thing." is a dangerous thing to say in a rules-forum, haha

Perhaps they were referring to barrage weapons?

If theres a wall, and a dude behind the wall, and a mortar on the opposite side of the wall to the dude drops a bomb behind the dude... I imagine the wall doesn't help him.

..............__________________
............./................................\ <--- bomb trajectory
.........../...................................\
____(((((X)))))_P_l____________^^^
....(boom)...(dude).(wall).........(mortar)

 Dakkamite wrote:
Ok, I don't want to read through the arguments in this thread.

Am I correct in saying;

>A: Place fortifications after terrain, because placing it before terrain makes no logical sense and terrain is typically pre-set before tournaments so placing fortifications would require moving the terrain from the board an feth it, you place after terrain, I don't care what that other guy says

Not touching, it depends on you and your opponent in a friendly game. My group plays fortifications ar set up after terrain.

>B: Rulebook says "each segment of wall must be touching at least one other segment" ergo you can place the wall as a number of seperate smaller wall segments. Also in line with common sense. (pg114)

Originally yes. Per the FAQ they must form an unbroken chain.

>C: Quad Gun, etc, must be attached to the wall as it is an "add-on" for the wall and not some random extra gun emplacement on the board

This is the biggest one being debated. I'm of the opinion that attached" does not mean physically attached, but is part of the fortification (similar to an IC who is "attached" to a unit).

>D: Models must be touching the Quad gun, not 3" away or whatever, because "blah blah model in base contact can fire the gun (pg105)"

Correct, in order to be able to fire the weapon, the model must physically be in contact with the base.

>E: Models get 4+ cover from this stuff if 25% or more of their body is obscured from LoS of the dude firing at them.

Again correct.

F: (I hate this one) Blast templates striking behind the wall to hit the dudes hidden behind it will bypass its cover save

Only if it is Barrage. Blast Weapons still use the normal rules.

Cheers for that, makes my post in the other thread somewhat redundant. Oh well, such is life on a web forum.

Kangodo wrote:
With all due respect:

You people are derailing another thread while we have a dozen threads open on this subject, even on the same page.

This thread was from a month ago...