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.

This has been debated to death.

The way the rules read, it DOES NOT have to touch the Aegis. The rules do not enforce this in any type of RAW fashion.

Logically, it would make no sense either. If you are setting up a defensive line, there may be very good tactical reasons to place the armament elsewhere. It is not like the Aegis "powers" the gun. There is no good reason it should have to be attached.

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is because we are not told that it is separate.

Actually we are told that, because GW had to explicitly require that the wall sections be a single unbroken chain. That implies that the default rule for fortifications, in the absence of a fortification-specific rule like that, can have their individual sections placed anywhere you want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Gun emplacement does not upgrade a unit...

That's why I said "unit". Fortifications are not technically units, but they work a lot like units in that they are a single entity composed of multiple models and chosen as a FOC slot.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is because we are not told that it is separate.

Actually we are told that, because GW had to explicitly require that the wall sections be a single unbroken chain. That implies that the default rule for fortifications, in the absence of a fortification-specific rule like that, can have their individual sections placed anywhere you want.

Incorrect, the FaQ clarified what they meant when they said "Each section of Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section" (114)

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Gun emplacement does not upgrade a unit...

That's why I said "unit". Fortifications are not technically units, but they work a lot like units in that they are a single entity composed of multiple models and chosen as a FOC slot.

Working like units and being a unit are two different things.

Also the ADL and the Gun Emplacement are not models as far as the 40K definition of model is concerned.

 DeathReaper wrote:
As with all shooting in this game It depends on True Line of Sight. if it is 25% covered from the point of view of the firing models Then it will get a save, if not then it wont.

(What does this have to do with anything?)

I think what he's getting at is that if the quad gun is just considered to be another section of the ADL, it can't get a cover save from itself.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AG. wrote:
DeathReaper -

If the Quad Gun is completely encircled by the ADL sections, does it get a cover save?

As with all shooting in this game It depends on True Line of Sight. if it is 25% covered from the point of view of the firing models Then it will get a save, if not then it wont.

(What does this have to do with anything?)

If the Quad Gun is part of the ADL like you say, how does it get a cover save? You don't get cover saves from either your own unit, or part of your own model.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Incorrect, the FaQ clarified what they meant when they said "Each section of Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section" (114)

I'm not talking about the FAQ, I'm talking about the rules as printed in the book. GW had to specifically say that each section had to be placed in contact with at least one other section, which means that the default for a fortification is that you don't have to have the sections in contact with each other. If such a requirement existed as part of the basic rules for fortifications then there would be no need to add this fortification-specific requirement to the ADL's rules.

Working like units and being a unit are two different things.

And I never said it was a unit. Please stop inventing bizarre strawman arguments.

 AG. wrote:
If the Quad Gun is part of the ADL like you say, how does it get a cover save? You don't get cover saves from either your own unit, or part of your own model.

Well it is a good thing that the Gun Emplacement is not a model or a unit...

 Peregrine wrote:
If such a requirement existed as part of the basic rules for fortifications then there would be no need to add this fortification-specific requirement to the ADL's rules.

The FaQ clarified what page 114 was saying about how each section needs to touch at least one other section.

Meaning an unbroken chain and not two pieces here, two pieces over there etc...

The gun emplacment isn't a model?

Fascinating.

 AG. wrote:
The gun emplacment isn't a model?

Fascinating.

Model, in the 40K rules, is defined as :

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics." (3) From this alone it seems that the ADL is a model, but we keep reading and we see this:

"In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type..." (3)

The ADL does not have a unit type, as it is Terrain. Therefore it is not a Model as it has no unit type. So it is not a model or a unit.

Fascinating Indeed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarified what page 114 was saying about how each section needs to touch at least one other section.

Meaning an unbroken chain and not two pieces here, two pieces over there etc...

Yes, now think about what this means: GW had to put two unit-specific limitations on the ADL. First the rulebook says you have to have each wall section in contact with at least one other section, then the FAQ clarified that the wall sections have to be a single unbroken chain. This means that the general case is that parts of a fortification do NOT have to be in contact, since if they did as a general rule then GW would not have had to make the ADL-specific rulings.

Conclusion: since the gun emplacement has no specific rule limiting its placement it can go anywhere a fortification can go without considering the placement of the wall sections.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarified what page 114 was saying about how each section needs to touch at least one other section.

Meaning an unbroken chain and not two pieces here, two pieces over there etc...

Yes, now think about what this means: GW had to put two unit-specific limitations on the ADL. First the rulebook says you have to have each wall section in contact with at least one other section, then the FAQ clarified that the wall sections have to be a single unbroken chain. This means that the general case is that parts of a fortification do NOT have to be in contact, since if they did as a general rule then GW would not have had to make the ADL-specific rulings.

Conclusion: since the gun emplacement has no specific rule limiting its placement it can go anywhere a fortification can go without considering the placement of the wall sections.

The underlined is a 100% made up assumption on your part.

False premise = false conclusion.

What about the Fortress of redemption, can you put those buildings wherever you want within your deployment zone?

General rule is that fortifications can be placed anywhere in your table half.

It is you who are making up the arbitrary restriction that the purchased gun must be in BtB with the ADL. All the FAQ says is the ADL parts must be BtB with each other, the gun is not an ADL section. It is a gun emplacement bought in the same FoC slot.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The underlined is a 100% made up assumption on your part.

No, it's the inevitable conclusion. If the basic rules for fortifications required their individual components to be placed in contact then GW would not have needed to make ADL-specific rules that the ADL's components have to be in contact.

What about the Fortress of redemption, can you put those buildings wherever you want within your deployment zone?

Yes, as long as you place them as a single structure (since they are not separate components).

If the Quad Gun is niether a model or a unit, then it cannot benefit from a cover save at all - as all rules relating to cover saves are specifically worded towards 'unit, model, vehicle' etc.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AG. wrote:
DeathReaper -

If the Quad Gun is completely encircled by the ADL sections, does it get a cover save?

As with all shooting in this game It depends on True Line of Sight. if it is 25% covered from the point of view of the firing models Then it will get a save, if not then it wont.

(What does this have to do with anything?)

if 25% of it is obscured then it gets it...see the rules for cover

Page 114.

"Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defence line sections."
"Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines)"

You can then add a Comms Relay or Gun Emplacement.

Page 104-105 lists the various types of Battlefield Debris and the Gun Emplacement is a separate entry from the Defence Lines.

If you are given the option to buy an extra piece of terrain does that make a different type of terrain? Since the Aegis entry does not specify this you are still stuck with 4 short, 4 long sections of Aegis Defence Lines and one additional piece of terrain. Nowhere is that additional piece called a 'section' or even given a specific type.
Since it's not a unit you can't claim it 'inherits' the type of its parent either.

The logical conclusion would be to refer to page 105 and see what type of battlefield debris the additional piece of terrain is.

Rorschach9 wrote:
This is a contentious issue that has been debated NUMEROUS times here.

Best bet : Play it safe and have it touching another section of the ADL. Nobody could possibly complain about it's placement then, regardless of how you read the relevant rule(s)

OP : Told you .. /sigh

 AG. wrote:
If the Quad Gun is niether a model or a unit, then it cannot benefit from a cover save at all - as all rules relating to cover saves are specifically worded towards 'unit, model, vehicle' etc.

Except that there are rules that specifically tell you that you can shoot at a Gun Emplacement, so you follow the process for shooting, which includes cover saves...

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
What about the Fortress of redemption, can you put those buildings wherever you want within your deployment zone?

Yes, as long as you place them as a single structure (since they are not separate components).

False they are separate components, 4 different buildings to be exact.
The rules specifically tell you "Each section Options: of the Fortress of Redemption must be placed in base contact with at least one other section." (117)

and that the Fortress is composed of "The bunkers[sic] annexes are both Small Buildings (Armour Value 14). the main tower is a Medium Building (Amour Value 14). the walkway connecting them is a small building (Amour Value 14)." (117)

So we have 2 small building annexes, one main tower, and one walkway.

What is stopping me from placing the tower and walkway somewhere, and the two bunker annexes somewhere else?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That stupid argument again.

Next you'll be saying that the 5 additional marines purchased for a tac squad have to be piggy back on the original 5 members.

Actually, they have unit coherency rules and they need to stay in unit coherency, This is true of the optional members of the squad as well as the base squad.

The sponsons have a defined place to be, using the definition of sponsons and the model itself.

The ADL has no such thing.

So how about the optional Hunter Killer missile? Could you place that anywhere?

The ADL has a FaQ saying all sections need to be touching.

The problem with the HK comparison is that you can shooting a kill a bastion, and have the quad gun survive. You can shoot and kill the quadgun and have the bastion survive. Clearly the Quadgun doesn't not function as an HK, which is just a weapon added to the tank.
Likewise, when I shoot at the Quadgun or Bastion, hits don't spill over from one to the other like they would in a squad that has Coherency. Clearly it isn't a single unit or squadron relationship either.
A tactical squad that purchases a dedicated transport is the closest approximation.

-Matt

Thought I would add my 2 cents

1st cent: Gun Emplacement is a Model, read the definition p.115 you clearly see "Model" so whatever crazy conflict you think to say it isn't a Model needs to get past the fact that the rule book says it is.

2nd cent: the picture shows the gun emplacement not touching the line, the FAQ even points out the picture as a legal deployment. Again any argument you make would be saying "I'm right and the rule book is wrong" doesn't work

Actually its not a model.

It does have a statline like a model, but it lacks a unit type which prevents it from being a model.

i think the gent before hand is trying to say that the rules actually specifically refer to the quad gun as a model when describing it.

On the whole the ADL must be continuous chain does that mean it must be as a loop?

Christopher300 wrote:
i think the gent before hand is trying to say that the rules actually specifically refer to the quad gun as a model when describing it.

Yes, they refer to the physical model used to represent the quad gun. But rules-wise it is not a model, it is terrain.

On the whole the ADL must be continuous chain does that mean it must be as a loop?

No. Each section just needs to be touching at least one other section.

Kisada II wrote:
2nd cent: the picture shows the gun emplacement not touching the line, the FAQ even points out the picture as a legal deployment. Again any argument you make would be saying "I'm right and the rule book is wrong" doesn't work

If you read my second to last post (and look at past threads on this topic), you will find out that people have used the same picture with a line added in via paint (or some other software) that not only shows that the Gun does not touch the ADL, but also that it does touch.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AG. wrote:
If the Quad Gun is niether a model or a unit, then it cannot benefit from a cover save at all - as all rules relating to cover saves are specifically worded towards 'unit, model, vehicle' etc.

Except that there are rules that specifically tell you that you can shoot at a Gun Emplacement, so you follow the process for shooting, which includes cover saves...

Where is the permission for the Quad Gun to take a cover save?

 DeathReaper wrote:
What is stopping me from placing the tower and walkway somewhere, and the two bunker annexes somewhere else?

Nothing right now (I was assuming the FoR model could only be assembled in one piece since it's only ever shown in that one arrangement). However, expect GW to treat it like the ADL if anyone starts playing it like that.

 AG. wrote:
If the Quad Gun is niether a model or a unit, then it cannot benefit from a cover save at all - as all rules relating to cover saves are specifically worded towards 'unit, model, vehicle' etc.

Down that road lies madness, since all of the rules for shooting also refer specifically to models and units. So despite the rules specifically saying that they gun can be attacked, there would be no actual mechanism for resolving such attacks.


This falls into the same sort of area as vehicles taking saves. We're told to apply rules that don't specifically refer to the target in question, and so we apply those ruels as if the target was the subject of those rules.

So the quad gun can be shot at... and the shooting process includes rules for cover.

After seeing this thread again, I am increasingly of the opinion that the wall & gun shouldn't be within 3" of each other.

Because you buy a battle field debris (defense line)
Then add a battle field debris (gun emplacement)

pg 120, set up fortifications, not within 3" of another fortification.

and under alternating terrain #3
3" from other terrain.

As the question "is the gun a section of the wall?" is debatable, make sure to discuss it with your opponent and/or TO.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Because you buy a battle field debris (defense line)
Then add a battle field debris (gun emplacement)

pg 120, set up fortifications, not within 3" of another fortification.

and under alternating terrain #3
3" from other terrain..

Neither defense lines nor gun emplacements are fortifications. The fortification is a single ADL, which consists of a defense line and a gun emplacement.

So you are placing one fortification that is comprised of 2 terrain pieces. You place this as a fortification, so the only relevant rule from those two is that it can't be placed within 3" of another fortification.

I really, really love reading this thread every week. I'm not being sarcastic. It is very entertaining. I giggle every time deathreaper brings up the predator sponson argument. (If the sponson is in a ruin in area terrain and is 25% obscured does it get a 2+ cover save when going to ground?)

Below are the facts I've gleaned:

ADL is a fortification that is terrain and battlefield debris, and must have 1-8 pieces that are all touching each other. FAQ'd.

Group A - assumes that since the quad/comms/icarus are an upgrade to the ADL it must be touching as well. Very vaild assumption. But no clear rule.

Group B - assumes that since there are no clear rules, the quad/comms/icarus get to be placed anywhere on your table half per normal fortification deployment rules. Also, very valid assumption with no defined rules.

The bottom line is the two players in the game at the table at the time of deployment have to figure it out on their own until GW FAQ's it.

See you next week!