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.

Hi, a question came up regarding the ADL's emplaced weapon. Does the weapon have to be mounted near the ADL, or can it be placed anywhere, such as inside of ruins or on other terrain?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/513970.page

covers some of the discussion on that issue.

Genearlly I put it behind the ADL, touching the sections (also to get a cover save). Most people I've played against do the same. I've yet to encounter anyone that placed it say 12" behind the line.

There's really no rule about placing them together. I've seen it house-ruled here and there, and of course it's often a serviceable enough location on its own ("hey, cool, cover"), but the rulebook is silent, ergo you can place them separately.

Ugh. Dang, alright, thanks guys.

Pyrian wrote:
There's really no rule about placing them together. I've seen it house-ruled here and there, and of course it's often a serviceable enough location on its own ("hey, cool, cover"), but the rulebook is silent, ergo you can place them separately.

No you really can not place them separately.

The Gun Emplacement is an option for the ADL and as such the Gun Emplacement, when purchased, is a part of the ADL.

Just like the sponson lascannons are an option for the Predator tank and as such the sponson lascannons, when purchased, are a part of the Predator tank.

You would not put your Predator sponsons on a land raider would you?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
There's really no rule about placing them together. I've seen it house-ruled here and there, and of course it's often a serviceable enough location on its own ("hey, cool, cover"), but the rulebook is silent, ergo you can place them separately.

No you really can not place them separately.

The Gun Emplacement is an option for the ADL and as such the Gun Emplacement, when purchased, is a part of the ADL.

Just like the sponson lascannons are an option for the Predator tank and as such the sponson lascannons, when purchased, are a part of the Predator tank.

You would not put your Predator sponsons on a land raider would you?

As Shandara said - posted link covers the discussion and there is no need to start it up again.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
There's really no rule about placing them together. I've seen it house-ruled here and there, and of course it's often a serviceable enough location on its own ("hey, cool, cover"), but the rulebook is silent, ergo you can place them separately.

No you really can not place them separately.

The Gun Emplacement is an option for the ADL and as such the Gun Emplacement, when purchased, is a part of the ADL.

Just like the sponson lascannons are an option for the Predator tank and as such the sponson lascannons, when purchased, are a part of the Predator tank.

You would not put your Predator sponsons on a land raider would you?

As Shandara said - posted link covers the discussion and there is no need to start it up again.

Except, the previous discussion ended with no real conclusion.

The debate essentially centred on some people asserting that the quad gun is a "section" of the ADL and that it must obey the attachment rules for deployment. But there doesn't actually seem to be any basis in the rules to assert any such thing.

The ADL is defined to be Battlefield Debris (Defense Line). The quad gun is Battlefield Debris (Gun Emplacement). They are purchased together and occupy a single FOC slot (Fortification).

There is a very common analog to this with Troops. Purchase a squad of Troops along with a Dedicated Transport, and they occupy a single Troops FOC slot. The unit and the transport are just as "attached" as an ADL and a quad-gun. When you deploy the Troops both the unit and the transport must be deployed together (eg, no holding the transport in Reserve), but there is absolutely nothing stopping you deploying the unit on one side of the board and the transport on the other.

I'm failing to see the rules basis that says ADLs and quad-guns are any different. Of course, as a Fortification FOC choice, they get deployed at a different time, and with different constraints (ie, anywhere in the owner's half), but nowhere does it say they have to be co-located.

The BRB FAQ refers to the upgrades for an Aegis as being "attached" to it. When referring to physical objects, the English language only uses the word attached to mean "physically connected".

Squads and their transports have completely different rules.

Sorry, that is a selective use of the meaning of attached. As was pointed out in the other thread, the attachment could just as easily be in an organisational sense (FOC slot). The context of the FAQ may lean in favour of the latter.

I disagree. It's a question about the thing on the table your unit wants to shoot at. it's not a question about the Force Org

If you find it ambiguous, good sportsmanship normally favors defaulting to the less-powerful interpretation.

I do find it unclear, and yet I don't feel that the BRB has enough to warrant insisting on physical attachment.

I might go hunting through some old White Dwarfs to see if they have any photos of the ADL with quad-gun in their Battle Reports. Photos in the BRB are obviously done for cinematic effect, so it would be inappropriate to assert a rule based on those.

Seems pretty clear, its bought as an upgrade to the Aegis Defence Line choice under fortifications.Fulebook + FAQ say all pieces must touch. Hence, the gun has to touch the defence line. Don't over think it

An even longer discussion was held in: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/502859.page

My contribution to that thread:
RAW: The BRB states that all sections of the ADL should be in contact, I see the Quad as a purchased section so it should be in contact.
HIWPI: I'd allow them to place it up to X inch away from it as long as they aren't trying to be cheesy with it.

The brb states that the ADL consists of 4 long and 4 short sections and each section must touch at least one other section. This is meaning the defensive lines, if you count the gun emplacement or comms relay as a section then you would need to remove one of the small or large defensive sections, in fact they three things are considered seperate types of battlefield debris and the picture in the book shows the quad gun deployed seperate from the defense line, I really think this is a silly argument sense the intent is so easy to infer from all the reading, at this point I would say anyone that trys this with me would be labeled as a TFG. No offense to you RAW guys but sometimes RAW just isn't perfect.

 chaplaincliff wrote:
the picture in the book shows the quad gun deployed seperate from the defense line,

No it does not. The back part of the gun touches the back wall in that pic.

The brb states that the ADL consists of 4 long and 4 short sections and each section must touch at least one other section. This is meaning the defensive lines

Correct, as the composition of the ADL is only the 4 long/short sections because the gun is optional therefore they do not list the gun in the composition as it is not always present.

if you count the gun emplacement or comms relay as a section then you would need to remove one of the small or large defensive sections

What rules do you have to back this up?

in fact they three things are considered seperate types of battlefield debris

Yes a gun emplacement and a Defense line are two types of terrain, why does that matter?

The Gun is an upgrade for the defense line in the same manner that the lascannons on a predator are upgrades for the predator.

Would you put the pred lascannons on your Land raider? This is the same as putting the gun emplacement somewhere other than with the Defense line.

 Iron Dragon wrote:
Hi, a question came up regarding the ADL's emplaced weapon. Does the weapon have to be mounted near the ADL, or can it be placed anywhere, such as inside of ruins or on other terrain?

Gun Emplacement, not emplaced weapon. Very big difference.

I can't believe people would argue over something like this. Wait a minute, of course I can, lol. Some people just love being 'rules lawyers' and that love transcends reasonableness and good sportsmanship.

Apologies to the actual lawyers out there.

There is only one actual rule involved; fortifications must be setup wholly within the owning player's table half.

Everything else is just stuff people are making up. There are at least two pictures of Aegis Defense Lines in the rules, neither of which has the gun in contact with the line, despite the claim to the contrary (we can all look ourselves, there is clearly space between the gun base and the wall). The rule that Aegis defense line sections must be contiguous is exactly that, a rule for Aegis defense line sections themselves; the rule is sufficiently specific to make the distinction clear. The comparison to vehicle sponsons is actually equivalent to arguing that if you add a second vehicle to a squadron, you must physically attach that vehicle to the first one! And it's not like an Aegis has a modeled connection to the gun, like sponsons do.

The entire argument that they must be connected is made up. It's not based on rules.

The difference being a squadron is a unit and a sponson is an upgrade for a model.

Plus, there is a pic, with sightlines, that shows that the gun is in fact in contact with the back wall, I am going to try and find it.

Edit: Found it

Pyrian wrote:
The rule that Aegis defense line sections must be contiguous is exactly that, a rule for Aegis defense line sections themselves.

The Gun is a part of the defense line if you take the option.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The BRB FAQ refers to the upgrades for an Aegis as being "attached" to it. When referring to physical objects, the English language only uses the word attached to mean "physically connected".

Squads and their transports have completely different rules.

So if (for example) a Farseer is attached to an Autarch they are physically connected? I've have yet to see a single rule that defines the Gun Emplacement/Comm Relay to be a "section".

In my gaming group most people typically keep it within 6" of the ADL itself, noone seems to mind if there is some seperation but the weapon doesn't sit on top of a ruin while the ADL itself surrounds said ruin.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The BRB FAQ refers to the upgrades for an Aegis as being "attached" to it. When referring to physical objects, the English language only uses the word attached to mean "physically connected".

Squads and their transports have completely different rules.

So if (for example) a Farseer is attached to an Autarch they are physically connected?

If there were any rule which described them as attached, maybe so. But there is none. Instead the rules consistently use the word "join", which has rather a different meaning, especially when applied to models representing living creatures able to associate or disassociate themselves with different groups and other creatures at will. If I join a party going out foxhunting, that's a rather different meaning from saying describing the sideview mirror as being attached to my car.

I've have yet to see a single rule that defines the Gun Emplacement/Comm Relay to be a "section".

You've seen a rule which describes them as being attached, though.

BRB FAQ wrote: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.

 CrashCanuck wrote:
In my gaming group most people typically keep it within 6" of the ADL itself, noone seems to mind if there is some seperation but the weapon doesn't sit on top of a ruin while the ADL itself surrounds said ruin.

While your group is agreeing on their house rules for fortifications, you might want to consider that under the normal terrain rules, there is no legal way for a fortification to be placed on or touching other terrain features. That's a restriction you might want to consider keeping.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The BRB FAQ refers to the upgrades for an Aegis as being "attached" to it. When referring to physical objects, the English language only uses the word attached to mean "physically connected".

Squads and their transports have completely different rules.

So if (for example) a Farseer is attached to an Autarch they are physically connected?

If there were any rule which described them as attached, maybe so. But there is none. Instead the rules consistently use the word "join", which has rather a different meaning, especially when applied to models representing living creatures able to associate or disassociate themselves with different groups and other creatures at will. If I join the Marines, that's a rather different meaning from saying that the sideview mirror is attached to my car.

And this is why I really need to stop posting at work, when I don't have my rulebook handy to verify verbiage.

I've have yet to see a single rule that defines the Gun Emplacement/Comm Relay to be a "section".

You've seen a rule which describes them as being attached, though.

BRB FAQ wrote: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.

Attached yes, but per the FAQ only the sections "have" to be in base contact. And as I said, there is no rule stating that the Gun/Relay is in fact a "section" (unlike the walls which are called out as sections).

 CrashCanuck wrote:
In my gaming group most people typically keep it within 6" of the ADL itself, noone seems to mind if there is some seperation but the weapon doesn't sit on top of a ruin while the ADL itself surrounds said ruin.

Best solution to every rules-issue: If you aren't trying to be cheesy, most people will never mind.

 Mannahnin wrote:

While your group is agreeing on their house rules for fortifications, you might want to consider that under the normal terrain rules, there is no legal way for a fortification to be placed on or touching other terrain features. That's a restriction you might want to consider keeping.

Fortification deployment requires you to deploy 3+" from another fortification, and completely in your own half. There doesn't seem to be any restriction on placing it within 3" of terrain (which could only mean fixed terrain in this instance).

Terrain deployment most certainly requires pieces to be kept 3" from other terrain, but by this stage, the fortifications are already on the table.

I'm just thinking about the hill on the GW Realm of Battle boards. With honking big hill in the middle of your back field you'd be hard pressed to deploy the ADL anywhere except up near the middle of the board.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I disagree. It's a question about the thing on the table your unit wants to shoot at. it's not a question about the Force Org

That's not true at all.

Asking about the physical location of the quad gun makes no sense, there's no rule that would suddenly prevent you from shooting at a quad gun (which you could normally shoot at) just because it happened to be touching an aegis line. If you interpret the FAQ to be asking about physical location then it's an obvious "yes", and makes about as much sense as having an "FAQ" that a bolter is STR 4 AP 5.

Asking about the organizational location of the quad gun makes perfect sense. You might wonder whether, say, being (organizationally) attached to a fortification you bought means it's part of your army and therefore you can't shoot at the gun (even if your opponent kills your unit and borrows it). Or you might wonder whether the gun being (organizationally) attached to a terrain feature that you can't shoot at means that you can't shoot at it in the same way that you could shoot at an independent gun. Etc.

So not only is the "organizationally attached" interpretation of the word a legitimate interpretation it makes MORE sense than the "physically touching" interpretation.

If you find it ambiguous, good sportsmanship normally favors defaulting to the less-powerful interpretation.

Sure. But that has nothing to do with what the rules actually say.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Plus, there is a pic, with sightlines, that shows that the gun is in fact in contact with the back wall, I am going to try and find it.

Only because that picture draws the line along the back wall to cover the entire back wall instead of just the relevant section behind the gun. The back wall is two separate pieces which are not 100% perfectly parallel. If you draw the lines using only the minimum number of points (the specific piece of plastic that could be touching the gun) there's a gap.

I found a couple of photos in old WDs, and they didn't even have the wall sections touching properly as required

Where I play we allow it to be placed separately.

Common sense generally rules these discussions in my group. If the rules don't spell it out then place yourself in the world and do what makes sense. Ask: can the two function independently? Yes, so therefore they can be deployed separately.

Even with this house rule it is rare anyone places it apart from the ADL.

There isnt a gap. the jutting out section of the QG fills any imagined gap

Do sponson have to be attached to a leman russ? Yes. Same for a quad gun. A nything else is not oly a houserule (ref: "attached") but frankly an absurd interpretation

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Do sponson have to be attached to a leman russ? Yes. Same for a quad gun. A nything else is not oly a houserule (ref: "attached") but frankly an absurd interpretation

Then why did it need to explicitly state that the wall sections must be in contact with each other, with a second FAQ that they have to form a single unbroken chain? If every component has to be in base contact by definition then shouldn't that be a redundant ruling?

Also, do you assume that if a unit says "may add up to 5 extra models at 10 points each" that each of the additional models must be physically touching the other models at all times?