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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 RicBlasko wrote:
It's an option for the ADL, how can you not put it with the ADL?

Because there's no rule that the pieces of a fortification have to be "with" each other. That's why the ADL requires an explicit unit-specific rule that the wall sections have to form a single unbroken chain, otherwise you could deploy them as individual pieces all over the table. Since the gun has no similar rule you can place it anywhere you like (subject to the normal rules for where a fortification can be placed).

Also, please define "with" in this context. Do you think that the gun emplacement must be in direct contact with the wall, or just "near" it? If you believe the latter, exactly what distance is considered "with" the wall, and where does the rulebook specify that distance?

With as in, you bought it as an option. With your logic, no where does it say I can pay for an option on anything, and then leave it somewhere else on the field, or on another model.
Master of the Fleet is an option you buy, he goes with his unit.
Camo netting is an option, it goes with the vehicle, I can not just put some netting out on the field, and any model that wonders by can use it.
The directions for adding the vox (another upgrade) shows it attached to the wall, but the rule books doesn't say it needs to be attached, but then the rule book doesn't say the model for the gun needs to even be on the table?
So are you saying I use it, but have it inside of a transport (rules doesn't say I can't, do they?)

 RicBlasko wrote:
With as in, you bought it as an option. With your logic, no where does it say I can pay for an option on anything, and then leave it somewhere else on the field, or on another model.

Sure there is. Some upgrades have to be within unit coherency, some have to be attached to the model (whether explicitly given to a specific model or by following the kit's directions for where to place turret upgrades/etc).

Master of the Fleet is an option you buy, he goes with his unit.

Only because the unit coherency rules specifically say that members of a unit always have to be within 2" of at least one other member. If that rule didn't exist (or the unit had a special rule that ignores it) then you'd be free to move the MotF anywhere you want.

Camo netting is an option, it goes with the vehicle, I can not just put some netting out on the field, and any model that wonders by can use it.

No, because camo netting explicitly gives a bonus to the model that takes it, not just anyone that happens to be nearby.

The directions for adding the vox (another upgrade) shows it attached to the wall, but the rule books doesn't say it needs to be attached, but then the rule book doesn't say the model for the gun needs to even be on the table?

The vox doesn't need to be within any specific distance of the wall either.

So are you saying I use it, but have it inside of a transport (rules doesn't say I can't, do they?)

The rules say you can't because the rules don't allow you to embark gun emplacements aboard a transport (or to deploy models inside of models that are not even on the table yet when fortifications are deployed).

 Peregrine wrote:
And I disagree completely. The best practice for an ambiguous situation is to play by the most likely interpretation. I see no reason to impose additional limits on yourself just because there's a tiny chance that an "ambiguous" statement could be interpreted in a more restrictive way.

The problem with going with the 'most likely' option is that people's views of what is most likely are often skewed by what is most advantageous for them. It's fine to go that way amongst people you are comfortable with, but against players you're not as familiar with it's generally considered more sporting to go with the least powerful alternative.

 insaniak wrote:
The problem with going with the 'most likely' option is that people's views of what is most likely are often skewed by what is most advantageous for them. It's fine to go that way amongst people you are comfortable with, but against players you're not as familiar with it's generally considered more sporting to go with the least powerful alternative.

So how do you play the "LOS must be drawn from the model's eyes" issue? Do you take the least powerful option and decline to ever shoot or assault with models wearing helmets (or lacking visible eyes for other reasons), or do you take the most likely option and say that they can draw LOS from their appropriate eye lenses/sensor clusters/whatever?

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And I disagree completely. The best practice for an ambiguous situation is to play by the most likely interpretation. I see no reason to impose additional limits on yourself just because there's a tiny chance that an "ambiguous" statement could be interpreted in a more restrictive way.

The problem with going with the 'most likely' option is that people's views of what is most likely are often skewed by what is most advantageous for them. It's fine to go that way amongst people you are comfortable with, but against players you're not as familiar with it's generally considered more sporting to go with the least powerful alternative.

That's not true, otherwise Wraithlords could never fire because that is the least advantageous interpretation of the rule requiring "eyes" to shoot. However, I know most people play by the most likely interpretation, which is that models without eyes can still shoot and that the rule is ridiculous.

 RicBlasko wrote:
It's an option for the ADL, how can you not put it with the ADL? You can not buy just the gun, you buy the ADL, and if you want, you can buy either gun or the Vox (which when you put the stupid thing together, shows where the Vox unit should be connected on the wall)

While I understand where you see the logical connection, Ric, I think that the association between the Aegis Defense Line and the Gun Emplacement you are allowed to purchase in conjunction with it is quite possibly a purely organizational one, and that it may not be a requirement to field them physically connected. Captains and their Command Squads, Techmarines and their Servitors, and Chapter Masters and their Honor Guard are all examples of a purchase that unlocks a second purchase, and while the two are usually fielded together, this is not a requirement.

I think that it is very possible that the rules were always intended to allow the gun to be placed elsewhere. I think it's a nebulous enough question that I would like to see it answered from an official source, though.

 Peregrine wrote:
So how do you play the "LOS must be drawn from the model's eyes" issue? Do you take the least powerful option and decline to ever shoot or assault with models wearing helmets (or lacking visible eyes for other reasons), or do you take the most likely option and say that they can draw LOS from their appropriate eye lenses/sensor clusters/whatever?

In how many games have you actually had an opponent raise an issue with models drawing LOS while wearing helmets?

 insaniak wrote:
In how many games have you actually had an opponent raise an issue with models drawing LOS while wearing helmets?

Never, but that's not the point. It's a hypothetical question: if someone did attempt to argue that "controversy", would you play it according to which option gives you the least advantage (no LOS through helmets) or would you play it according to which option is the most likely way that the rule was meant to be used (eye lenses/sensor clusters/etc function as eyes)?

It's exactly the point. We're talking about a method of dispute resolution. If there is no dispute, there is no need for resolution.

And there is never going to be a dispute over whether or not models with helmets on can draw LOS.

 Peregrine wrote:
The rulebook tells you very clearly where fortifications can be placed: entirely in your half of the table, not within X" of another fortification.

Exactly, and the ADL and its optional gun are a single fortification. (Unless you have a rules citation that says they are two different fortifications that take up one fortification slot).

The whole gun emplacement needs more rules. The thing's stupid because its like a model with a toughness but its unclear how to use it.

Can it receive a cover save?
Can you give it psychic powers?
If the enemy uses your gun can you shoot the thing yourself?

About the placement issue I agree with Peregrine. There is nothing / no rules that doesn't allow you to place it anywhere you want.

It's a bit tricky, shogun, but I will try to answer your questions.

1. Yes, it can get a cover save. In fact, it probably will get a cover save from the Aegis Defense Line.
2. No. There are currently no entries which allow upgrading a gun emplacement with Psyker Mastery levels.
3. Yes. If you are both in base contact with it, you can both take turns firing it.

 insaniak wrote:
It's exactly the point. We're talking about a method of dispute resolution. If there is no dispute, there is no need for resolution.

And there is never going to be a dispute over whether or not models with helmets on can draw LOS.

There would be from me if you claimed I couldn't deploy my gun emplacement where I wanted using the justification you gave in this thread.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Exactly, and the ADL and its optional gun are a single fortification. (Unless you have a rules citation that says they are two different fortifications that take up one fortification slot).

And there is no rule that the individual pieces of a fortification have to be placed in contact with (or "near") each other. In fact the exact opposite is true, since the ADL needed a specific rule that you have to deploy them in a single unbroken chain to prevent you from deploying it in two separate places. If fortifications had to have all of their pieces deployed in contact with each other then there would have been no need for the ADL-specific rule.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

There would be from me if you claimed I couldn't deploy my gun emplacement where I wanted using the justification you gave in this thread.

What? Where did I make any justification on where the gun can be deployed?

There is not permission for the quad gun/lascannon/relay to be placed anywhere on the table. Permissive ruleset. The object is not placed. The object is destroyed.

Poorly written rules spark poor sports.

katfude wrote:
There is not permission for the quad gun/lascannon/relay to be placed anywhere on the table. Permissive ruleset. The object is not placed. The object is destroyed.

Poorly written rules spark poor sports.

There already is permission though:

Peregrine wrote: The rulebook tells you very clearly where fortifications can be placed: entirely in your half of the table, not within X" of another fortification. As long as your ADL configuration meets those two requirements (along with the unit-specific one that the wall sections must form a single unbroken chain) then it is a legal way of placing the fortification.

It's part of the aegis, yes?

It, unlike the sections, has not been faq'd to say that it must be placed in the chain.

Therefore, it must abide by:

"entirely in your half of the table, not within X" of another fortification. "

As long as you fulfil these criteria, I'd argue, you could place that gun wherever you want.

Iranna.

Waaaghpower wrote:Adding 'Citation Needed' to any argument you disagree with is not a counterpoint. Respond with a logical, thought out opinion, a quote from the rulebook, sure. But at least have an opinion besides "You're wrong."

"Citation needed" =/= "You're wrong"
IMO it is better translated as "you're not very persuasive, yet"
On the other hand, in some cases there can be no citation to justify a position. Especially in a case where most agree the rules are incomplete or woefully lacking.
In this case, a logical argument with precedent and principle is more than adequate. Or at least more adequate than shrugging your shoulders and saying we'll never know.

Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The standard best practice for an ambiguous situation is to play by the less powerful/more restrictive interpretation, to minimize the chance of claiming an undeserved advantage over an opponent.

And I disagree completely. The best practice for an ambiguous situation is to play by the most likely interpretation. I see no reason to impose additional limits on yourself just because there's a tiny chance that an "ambiguous" statement could be interpreted in a more restrictive way.

When the two interpretations seem equally likely, this has been the gentlemanly/sporting thing to do. It's been an oft cited principle that has guided rules discussions on this site (and 40k boards in general) for years.

That being said, I don't think it particularly applies to this discussion. For 2 reasons...
1) I don't think this (liberal placement interpretation) option is particularly overpowered or unbalanced. Sure, it's nice, but you still have to pay for the Quad gun, and for the unit to sit on it to make it work. The units that most effectively sit and shoot will often also most benefit from the ADL's 4+ cover save. Also, ADLs and QuadGun upgrades are available to every Codex. This makes it hard to call it Codex favoritism. Sure Space Marines would probably get more mileage out of it than Tyranids, but that's pretty far down the list on a Tyranids player's list of grievences (im assuming)

and 2) It's not close to equally likely.

For clarity, I am arguing from a RAI point of view. RAW, I agree with the liberal placement interpretation.

I can see a few reasonable arguments for the liberal placement interpretation. They are all based on the permissive principle of 'the rules say I can, therefore I can' with the strong followup of 'the rules do not say I can't, therefore I can'. From a RAW point of view, this is more than enough for me. I find it persuasive.

On the other hand, RAI ...
1) every Every GW picture featuring and ADL + Quad gun has it in contact with the wall sections or in close proximity to the wall sections (<2-4" away) Please note, pictures are not rules. There are also several pictures of the ADL wall pieces spread out in small clusters rather than a single long chain.
2) the recent spat of Necron rulings to address the "I can place these Warriors or Scarabs wherever I want because the rules don't say I can't" issues were all ruled in favor of the more restrictive placing option. http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3180057a_Necrons_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf
3) When buying upgrades / additional models for a unit, the option is either physically attached to the unit (dozer blade), gives very specific rules for where they can be deployed (GK TechMarine Servo Skulls) or they are another model in the unit subject to coherency (the 6th-10th Space marines in a Tac Squad)
4) Terrain (including Battlefield Debris) can be one large piece or a cluster of up to 3 smaller pieces (BRB p120). To me, 'cluster' implies proximity
etc

A great deal of the confusion seems to arise from the ADL + Quad gun being not a unit but also not terrain. Sure, it is treated like a unit for some things (1 per FO, Quad gun has Toughness, wounds and armor save) and like terrain for others (Terrain density, cover save rules). But it is in fact neither. It's a special thing GW added. Don't get me wrong, I love the ADL as an option and Fortifications in general. I wish GW would come out with a Fortification Codex and give me 30 more options But they put out rules for them with a lot of holes and poorly organized. Remember all the confusion when 6th ed launched and people were unsure what cover save an ADL granted? This thing's main purpose was for things to stand behind it and grant them a cover save

When I play ADLs + Quad gun, I place the Quad gun in contact with the ADL. I don't think this is required, I just like the fit and cover save for the unit operating it, usually a IG CCS.

I would suggest a RAI guideline of an ADL upgrade being within 4" coherency of the Wall Sections.

I just looked up Gun Emplacement, and the ADL in the little rule book that came in the Dark Vengeance box set.
ADL says "add" before listing the guns and Com uplink with their points.
So if you look at it that way, it's *added* to the ADL.
Both the Gun Emplacements and ADL are listed as or under Battlefield Debris.
So if it is treated as different pieces, and you ignore the "Add" part, then you would have to set it up at the mini distance then, correct?

thanks guys for all the help

by the way i got another question (if you dont mind) dos the Quadgun as cover save 3+ from the aegis?

If it's obscured by 25% yes.

Why is TLOS so hard?

hellboytuga wrote:
thanks guys for all the help

by the way i got another question (if you dont mind) dos the Quadgun as cover save 3+ from the aegis?

It's a 4+ cover save, but yes.

 Peregrine wrote:

Your position does not match the rulings major tournaments are making so far, nor to the rulings I'm seeing at events here in New England either.

So what? That just means that the major tournaments are wrong and/or ruling based on "how I think it should work" instead of "what the rules say". If the major tournaments want to change the rules so that it works in a more "fluffy" way and is less "exploitable" that's fine, but it doesn't change what the rules as published by GW say.

Feel free to tell everyone how all the big events are wrong and changing the rules but you know the truth. The rule is ambiguous. Other people read it differently than you do. While I enjoy textual analysis as much as the next guy, the main purpose of a rules discussion like this is to help folks understand how the rules are played so they can have smoother games and know what to expect. Saving headaches and time at the table. To that purpose, knowing how other people commonly play it and how big events are ruling it is helpful to many players.

I'm a relatively new player. I am only aware of one instance where you pay for an upgrade on one unit, that can actually be applied to a completely different unit. In the DA codex you can purchase A Deathwing or Ravenwing champion with the purchase of an appropriate command squad, but the champion is any Deathwing or Ravenwing model (i forget if its any Deathwing Terminator and Ravenwing Biker or Black knight) but that upgrade for the command squad can be applied to another unit and placed out of unit coherency with the unit was purchased with.

Now that being said, I understand that the Aegis is a fortification and the ADL is a gun emplacement. However, lacking a rule stating that you can place it anywhere or that you have to place it touching, I would say it should be placed touching or with one edge/corner within 2" of the ADL. Nothing to me says it has to be this way, but I see it as a reasonable compromise between all of the possibilities. So I've chosen to look at similar rules for units and apply it to this. Give some nod to not placing in base contact but say it needs to be in coherency with the ADL. Granted for the ADL to be in "coherency" with itself, it has to be touching itself. But I've also never had anyone want to place the gun further away from the ADL.

At this point there is no right or wrong way to do it. If you insist on "I can place it anywhere I want because it doesn't say specifically that I can't" you probably won't win any friends and they probably won't play with you again. So have fun being "right" but eventually unable to play with anyone else if you bring the game to a screeching halt prior to any unit actually being placed on the board. I'd probably pack up at that point since you're likely to argue anything and everything else and make the game no fun.

If it says attached wouldn't that at the very least mean coherency distance?

 Mythra wrote:
If it says attached wouldn't that at the very least mean coherency distance?

What is coherency distance for a fortification?

(Answer: none is ever stated.)

foolishmortal wrote:
I would suggest a RAI guideline of an ADL upgrade being within 4" coherency of the Wall Sections.

I agree that this is a reasonable house rule, and I would love it if GW changed the rules to include a similar limit. However, it isn't RAI (or, obviously, RAW), it's just a house rule, and it needs to be presented as one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
While I enjoy textual analysis as much as the next guy, the main purpose of a rules discussion like this is to help folks understand how the rules are played so they can have smoother games and know what to expect.

Sure, which is why the proper thing to do is say "many events have a house rule that says X". If helping people is the goal then you should warn them to expect a house rule that doesn't appear in the rulebook so there will be no surprises when they encounter the house rule.

To that purpose, knowing how other people commonly play it and how big events are ruling it is helpful to many players.

Popular is not the same thing as correct. It's useful to know that a particular ruling is popular, but you presented that claim about popularity as if it is an argument that popularity makes it correct.

Peregrine - yet it is only your opinion, based on yoru dismissal of "attached" meaning physically connected (despite that being the most obvious usage, based on context, despite your protestations) that it is a houserule.

 Peregrine wrote:

Popular is not the same thing as correct. It's useful to know that a particular ruling is popular, but you presented that claim about popularity as if it is an argument that popularity makes it correct.

When you're talking about a game played with other people, it kind of does .

Where there are multiple possible interpretations, the one that people agree to use is the 'correct' one. And at least for pick up games and tournaments, that is generally going to be the popular interpretation.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Popular is not the same thing as correct. It's useful to know that a particular ruling is popular, but you presented that claim about popularity as if it is an argument that popularity makes it correct.

When you're talking about a game played with other people, it kind of does .

Where there are multiple possible interpretations, the one that people agree to use is the 'correct' one. And at least for pick up games and tournaments, that is generally going to be the popular interpretation.

QFT. If you are deciding to make a ruling that benefits you contrary to those accepted by the general gaming community via unanimous or nearly unanimous rulings in major tournaments...you will quickly start being TFG.

Peregrine, even though there is ambiguity regarding the situation...I don't see how forcing your view in this situation is a good idea at all. Regardless on if you think you are right or wrong in your debate, sometimes we have to accept that the way we want things to go are not how they are going to go when there is obvious grey area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not saying your arguement is invalid, and if you are stating your case ONLY for arguement sake...understand that I hold nothing against you.

But if you intentionally rule this way to get benefit on the table against another player...that is when my statement applies. :-)

I'm still luke-warm on the whole abusiveness of the permissive deployment interpretation. Under what circumstances would this be considerably more abusive?

You can't put it on a ruin. The ADL and Quad are placed on the table before normal terrain.

It still requires a unit with a BS to fire it. That unit does not get the Artillery Toughness bonus.

It has a 48" range, and requires LOS, so its not an off the table IG Basilisk.

You can have 1 per most games or 2 at 2000+. It's not spamable. Of course, I'd still have to see why this is amazing/abusive before wanting to spam it

Give me a worst case scenario