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.

I personally have mines usually just behind it, touching it, to get a cover save and to make it easier for the squad to use/benfit from cover, also to prevent this very argument.

When playing anyone who uses them they generally do the same thing, in our club however we set up the rule that while no where states it must be touching, it must still be with the walls as it is purchased with them.

So we play it that the walls obey the normal rules (must be touching in an unbroken chain etc.) but the gun must be placed within 3" of the wall.

Depending on who you are playing with at my club this range can change, some play it as 6", as long as you and your opponent are clear on it pre-game.

 Rysaer wrote:
When playing anyone who uses them they generally do the same thing, in our club however we set up the rule that while no where states it must be touching, it must still be with the walls as it is purchased with them.

If you deploy the walls in a straight line (like ========) then what is "within" a shape that doesn't enclose any area?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Rysaer wrote:
When playing anyone who uses them they generally do the same thing, in our club however we set up the rule that while no where states it must be touching, it must still be with the walls as it is purchased with them.

If you deploy the walls in a straight line (like ========) then what is "within" a shape that doesn't enclose any area?

I don't really get what it is you are drilling at, if you deployed it as a straight line, then the gun can be within 3" of any point of this line.

Example: ============= < - 3" - > (Quad Gun)

Edit: unless you edited the post to change it I misread "with" as "within" for some reason.

I edited it for some spelling, I could have possibly changed that, but I get what you meant now. Sorry about that Peregrine.

 Peregrine wrote:
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?

They explicitly state that the sections had to be in base contact in an unbroken chain due to the wording would allow you to have 4 separate sections of ADL, each in base contact with one other piece.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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

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.

No, you're misreading it and misunderstanding me. The question is asking whether you're allowed to shoot at it, and the answer is that yes, you shoot at it like any other weapon emplacement, as described in the rules for weapon emplacements ojn page 105. The question describes the gun as being "attached" to the aegis, which provides us information, as well as establishing exactly which one we're talking about. The situation it's addressing is "I want to shoot at that thing over there. May I?" "Which thing?" "The one attached to my opponent's Aegis." "Yes, like any other weapon emplacement, as described on page 105."

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

There's no gap if you're aware that the base of the quad gun has a control panel which sticks out further. If you're familiar with the model you know that.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The question describes the gun as being "attached" to the aegis, which provides us information, as well as establishing exactly which one we're talking about.

It gives us no information at all.

Let's take your interpretation, and imagine if we move the gun emplacement 1mm back away from the wall so it is no longer in contact. Does this change the FAQ in any meaningful way at all? Of course not. The answer is still exactly the same, so the "in physical contact" information is entirely redundant. In fact, if you remove the word "attached" entirely, replacing it with an unambiguous "this gun", you have the exact same FAQ.

Now let's take mine, and imagine if we remove the organizational "attachment". Does this change the FAQ in any meaningful way? YES. If you're wondering things like "can I shoot at the gun from my own fortification" or "does making it part of a non-shootable type of fortification prevent me from shooting at the gun" this information makes a huge difference.

See the difference yet?

There's no gap if you're aware that the base of the quad gun has a control panel which sticks out further. If you're familiar with the model you know that.

But only a small part of the wall is the flat "inner" edge, most of the wall behind the gun is the diagonal part and the "outer" edge which gives a lot more space. The closest gap is just at the very corner of the gun. So until we find a better picture we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that.

 Peregrine wrote:
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?

We have rules for how the extra models should behave - something called Unit Coherency (BRB pg 11). Or does it only apply to the original models in the unit, leaving the extras free to go where they want?

Spetulhu wrote:
We have rules for how the extra models should behave - something called Unit Coherency (BRB pg 11). Or does it only apply to the original models in the unit, leaving the extras free to go where they want?

Exactly. We have specific rules for unit coherency, because otherwise there would be no limit on how far apart models in the same unit could (willingly) be. We have no such rule for fortification coherency, so no maximum distance limit exists.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The question describes the gun as being "attached" to the aegis, which provides us information, as well as establishing exactly which one we're talking about.

It gives us no information at all.

It tells us that the gun is attached to the wall. Just like in the FAQ about Mad Dok Grotsnik and which models can take the cybork upgrade, the question part is where GW tells us that vehicles can't take the upgrade.

 Mannahnin wrote:
It tells us that the gun is attached to the wall. Just like in the FAQ about Mad Dok Grotsnik and which models can take the cybork upgrade, the question part is where GW tells us that vehicles can't take the upgrade.

Read that post again please. A situation where the gun is physically touching the wall and a situation where the same gun is moved 1mm away from the wall are exactly the same for purposes of the FAQ. The additional information of "physically touching the wall" is no more relevant than if GW had added "painted green" to the description of the gun, and I doubt you'd be arguing that all quad guns must be painted green based on that hypothetical FAQ.

So not only is the "organizational" definition of "attached" a legitimate one, it's the one that makes the most sense in context and the only one that makes "attached" a relevant bit of information.

 Peregrine wrote:
Let's take your interpretation, and imagine if we move the gun emplacement 1mm back away from the wall so it is no longer in contact. Does this change the FAQ in any meaningful way at all? Of course not. The answer is still exactly the same, so the "in physical contact" information is entirely redundant. In fact, if you remove the word "attached" entirely, replacing it with an unambiguous "this gun", you have the exact same FAQ.

Wrongo. The word "attached" matters precisely because it provides additional semantic content. It tells us that the gun is connected to the wall. If they used the phrase "this gun", we'd be lacking that confirmation, and would only be able to infer it from the picture in the BRB.

 Peregrine wrote:
Now let's take mine, and imagine if we remove the organizational "attachment". Does this change the FAQ in any meaningful way? YES. If you're wondering things like "can I shoot at the gun from my own fortification" or "does making it part of a non-shootable type of fortification prevent me from shooting at the gun" this information makes a huge difference.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The main question is clearly making clear that you can shoot at it, and whether it's bought at part of an Aegis makes no difference. The same FAQ also provides us information about how the gun is positioned.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Wrongo. The word "attached" matters precisely because it provides additional semantic content. It tells us that the gun is connected to the wall. If they used the phrase "this gun", we'd be lacking that confirmation, and would only be able to infer it from the picture in the BRB.

Except that the FAQ is not about whether or not the gun must be touching the wall, it's asking whether you can shoot at a quad gun from an aegis line. Whether or not the gun is physically touching the wall adds no more information than whether or not the gun is painted green, while whether or not the gun is organizationally attached to the wall adds significant information in this context.

Now, if we were talking about a different (hypothetical) FAQ that was asking something like "where can I place my gun" I would agree that if GW said "it must be attached to the wall" the obvious meaning would be physical contact. But that's an entirely different FAQ that doesn't exist.

The main question is clearly making clear that you can shoot at it, and whether it's bought at part of an Aegis makes no difference.

EXACTLY.

To get that meaning "attached" means "organizationally attached". The question is asking whether attaching (organizationally) the quad gun to the fortification makes any difference in whether you can shoot it or not, which is a relevant question to ask. The answer is that no, it makes no difference, and aegis quad guns can be shot at just like any other quad gun.

The same FAQ also provides us information about how the gun is positioned.

Only if you assume that GW wants to provide information about gun positioning but for some bizarre reason is unable to print the following:

Q: Does a gun emplacement purchased as part of an aegis line have to obey the requirement of being in contact with at least one wall section?
A: Yes.

If you read the FAQ with no assumptions about what it is trying to say there is absolutely no reason to believe there is some kind of subtle hidden message in the precise wording of the question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
===========================================================

Actually, you know what? Even if you interpret it as "physically touching" you STILL don't have a ruling. Here's what the FAQ says (not the exact wording since GW's site is down):

Q: Can I shoot a gun emplacement attached to an aegis line?
A: Yes.

So let's replace it with your interpretation:

Q: Can I shoot a gun emplacement that is touching an aegis line?
A: Yes.

So, what do we learn? Yes, you can shoot gun emplacements that are touching aegis lines. Gun emplacements that are not touching aegis lines are not ruled on and could be up for debate in some situations, but I guess some FAQs are just limited in scope. But here's the important point:

The FAQ never says that the gun MUST be attached to the wall, it only asks what happens IF it is attached to the wall.

So even under your interpretation we still don't have a "must touch" ruling. You have to argue some kind of RAI and insert a "must" into there somewhere to get any kind of statement that the only kind of legal quad guns are the ones that are touching wall sections.

GW has repeatedly given information addressing/answering multiple questions within a given FAQ. There's no point pretending otherwise, and ignoring usable information is foolish. The only purpose of using the word "attached" is to make clear where the model is positioned. Otherwise they could have used some other word or phrase, like "this gun included with".

Your choice to disregard useful information creates unnecessary ambiguity and conflict. It serves the purpose of facilitating the claiming an ability (being able to place the gun separately, anywhere on your own side), which is (IMO) clearly not intended, and which represents a substantial game advantage. It's unsportsmanlike at best, and deliberate misinterpretation for advantage at worst.

If your opponents are okay with that, then have a party. Enjoy. I do not expect to see your interpretation used in tournaments, or on any table near me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The FAQ never says that the gun MUST be attached to the wall, it only asks what happens IF it is attached to the wall.

You have got to be trolling me. It asks whether you can shoot at one attached to an Aegis. Attached means connected; not just touching. It's not an option of whether or not to attach it. By default it is attached, as is implicit in the FAQ question.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The only purpose of using the word "attached" is to make clear where the model is positioned. Otherwise they could have used some other word or phrase, like "this gun included with".

Please stop saying "only purpose" when I have, many times, given another purpose that is at least as reasonable.

And yes, they could have used another word, but you haven't done anything to establish that this choice of word means anything other than 'attached' was the first word that the author thought of when they wanted to express the concept "organizationally subordinate to".

Your choice to disregard useful information creates unnecessary ambiguity and conflict.

No, my choice removes conflict. Instead of arguing about how close is "reasonable" (like the people advocating various maximum distances) my choice removes the conflict entirely. The only "conflict" left if you take my interpretation is that some people don't like what it allows, but that's no different than some people not liking the fact that Necron flyerspam exists.

Not that this is my motivation, of course. My "choice" is simply what the rules say, the fact that the consequences remove conflict is just a nice benefit.

It serves the purpose of facilitating the claiming an ability (being able to place the gun separately, anywhere on your own side), which is (IMO) clearly not intended, and which represents a substantial game advantage. It's unsportsmanlike at best, and deliberate misinterpretation for advantage at worst.

Nice to see that the rule about not attributing bad motives to a person only applies to some people.

And for the record the only aegis line + quad gun model I'd use in my army has the quad gun permanently mounted in the center of a ring of walls, less than 2" from the wall. Not that my choice to use a "fluffy" cool model for mine has anything to do with the actual rules, but I have nothing to gain from this position. I'm just not going to enforce my "fluffy" choice on someone else when the rules don't require it.

You have got to be trolling me. It asks whether you can shoot at one attached to an Aegis. Attached means connected; not just touching. It's not an option of whether or not to attach it. By default it is attached, as is implicit in the FAQ question.

Please try to understand the difference between the following two sentences:

Can I shoot at a quad gun that is painted green?

Can I shoot at a quad gun that is painted green like all quad guns are required to be?

The former is what is actually printed in the rulebook: IF condition X exists, what happens with Y? The latter is what you are trying to turn it into, a statement that condition X MUST exist. Unfortunately that is not what it says.

That's the second post in a row in which you've made flat out false statements about what the rules say.

I'm not going to continue with you.

 Mannahnin wrote:
That's the second post in a row in which you've made flat out false statements about what the rules say.

And what exactly would these "false" statements be? If I mis-quoted the FAQ in any meaningful way I already stated that I can't get the exact wording because GW's website is down, so if you saved a copy and want to provide the exact wording feel free.

Edit: looks like even though the main page is down you can still get to the FAQs. So here it is:

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.

Looks like everything I claimed about the rule is correct.

I'm not going to continue with you.

Oh good, I'm glad you edited out the part where you accused me of acting in bad faith. Because I'd hate to think that the rules about not accusing people of acting in bad faith don't apply to moderators.

Peregrine - why the strawman where you claim that attached == add to?

The FAQ tells you that the gun is attached to the line. Common usage tells you what this means. You have no reasonable alternative, just a very contrived one.

Peregrine, we aren't talking about allied "attachments" to your army here. We are talking about two parts of a single fortification choice which are attached to each other (one -the gun- being an option for the ADL as a whole which is 'attached' to the Line). 'Attached' has a very different meaning in those two contexts... Ask yourself which context REALLY applies here... Then look at the FAQs and read the context they are CLEARLY using and ask yourself again if maybe you are using the wrong context of 'attached'...

I'm with Peregrine on this one.

And personally, I don't see the point of the FAQ. The Gun Emplacement rules on p105 already say you're allowed to shoot at and assault GEs. Whether the ADL QG/ICL is touching the walls or not doesn't change the fact it's a GE.

If the point of the FAQ is to tell us that GEs must physically touch the ADL, why the hell didn't they just say so, instead of obfuscating this reasonably important ruling in an FAQ that is already covered in the BRB?

Snapshot wrote:

And personally, I don't see the point of the FAQ. The Gun Emplacement rules on p105 already say you're allowed to shoot at and assault GEs. Whether the ADL QG/ICL is touching the walls or not doesn't change the fact it's a GE.

If the point of the FAQ is to tell us that GEs must physically touch the ADL, why the hell didn't they just say so, instead of obfuscating this reasonably important ruling in an FAQ that is already covered in the BRB?

Perhaps because GW do not write the FAQ questions, they simply answer questions sent to them by players. As we can clearly see, FAQ questions are often poorly worded and (one would think) unnecessary.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Snapshot wrote:

And personally, I don't see the point of the FAQ. The Gun Emplacement rules on p105 already say you're allowed to shoot at and assault GEs. Whether the ADL QG/ICL is touching the walls or not doesn't change the fact it's a GE.

If the point of the FAQ is to tell us that GEs must physically touch the ADL, why the hell didn't they just say so, instead of obfuscating this reasonably important ruling in an FAQ that is already covered in the BRB?

Perhaps because GW do not write the FAQ questions, they simply answer questions sent to them by players. As we can clearly see, FAQ questions are often poorly worded and (one would think) unnecessary.

You're probably right, but surely the FAQ editorial team have got more important questions to answer than those for which RTFM suffices.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peregrine - why the strawman where you claim that attached == add to?

The FAQ tells you that the gun is attached to the line. Common usage tells you what this means. You have no reasonable alternative, just a very contrived one.

His argument isn't contrived at all. You can't argue the context that the word "attached" was used because there was no context referencing the word "attached". It could absolutely be taken to mean either way, and both sides have valid points. Attached could mean physically touching, or could mean attached as in purchased as part of the fortification in the FoC.

To those posting GW pictures of evidence of physical attachment, I suggest you look at the next couple pages, where it clearly shows a comms relay completely separate from the imperial bastion, with no doubt or obfuscation by angle of view. Personally, I don't think GW pictures not specifically marked as gameplay examples should be used in rules arguments, but if they are, I'd say this points more towards allowing them to be placed separately than anything else.

As far as HIWPI, I'd be ok with whatever interpretation my opponent was comfortable with, so long as we worked it out before game, and hashed out the issue of being able to plop a large piece of terrain down in front of someone's GE. I'd really like to see GW FAQ fortifications to amend their placement to occur just before you deploy your army.

I'm well aware this won't stop the debate (not that I want to) but all seem to have forgotten "The most important rule".
If anyone is in a tournament and this argument turns up.. The only rule you would be able to go by is the most important rule... This is not just a house rule that's been vetted by GW, it is in fact The Most Important Rule!!! And all players of all game types have the right to call apon it... Especially if this argument is during a tournament.. Unless the organisers have there own calling on it.. If you don't know what The Most Important Rule is.. First.. Did you read the BRB? Second, let the dice settle the argument...

Perhaps you should read the tenets of the sub forum you're posting in.

TMIR is useless in a discussion about what the rules say.

As I said in the start of the post.. I'm not trying to end the debate just remind the debaters that saying what you 'can' and 'can't' do in games and in tournaments has NO place in rules debates just the debate ignores TMIR doesn't mean it doesn't exist... So perhaps debaters should leave such "can/ won't/ not allowed/ etc phrases abed..
Ps if we went by the strict tenants 3/4 of this thread should be deleted...

 Spazamataz wrote:
As I said in the start of the post.. I'm not trying to end the debate just remind the debaters that saying what you 'can' and 'can't' do in games and in tournaments has NO place in rules debates just the debate ignores TMIR doesn't mean it doesn't exist... So perhaps debaters should leave such "can/ won't/ not allowed/ etc phrases abed..
Ps if we went by the strict tenants 3/4 of this thread should be deleted...

EDIT: Totally responded to this post thinking it was in a different thread.

Anyhow, mentioning TMIR is directly forbidden with no caveats or exceptions, unlike the 3/4 of this thread that you're referring to, which has exceptions for people to skirt. I don't think they're skirting those exceptions here, and agree that they are likely in violation. But as far as not using TMIR, I believe it may even be rule #1 on this subforum, but haven't looked recently.

And no I didn't think it was a different thread.. I just never read the rules properly... (rule 7ish I believe)
More to the point is the fact that people in the forum are blatantly insulting each other..
refusing to hear any debate other than those that side with them...
And basically calling each other rules lawyers without using that phrase.. not citing or not correctly citing..
and if the forum wanted to be a debate then it would push for "I believe" rather than "It can't".. (yes it does go into RAW and all that but funny how it's vague with 'exeptions' on that concept and extremely hard and fast on it's "no caveats or exceptions" for TMIR.. which.. well the title says it all...

Betray - when referencing physicla models "attached" is unlikely to mean "FoC", hence contrived