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.

ragile if you read my post, you will see that I said I could not tell but it looked too far away to be touching and that I could be wrong. Were you there when they took that photo? If you were, you could have physically leaned over and shot a 2nd photograph to show it from the top looking down which would have showed it it was touching or not.To all appearances to ME, it looks like it is not touching, you might see it as touching. Until, you are able to prove that it is touching in the picture, I will have to continue to think it could be either way.it is not that big a dealif it makes you sleep better tonight, I can SAY Iam wrong without knowing for sure. Heavon knows I've done it enough other times here and in life when I really am wrong. admitting being wrong is not that big a deal.amd I do it everye when I am.

I asked what was illegal about the setup because I was told in this thread that it was not an example of a legal deployment. I was just curious to know what about it was illegal since I was told it was not an example of a legal deployment..
I know some of their other pictures like battle scenes and such are not legal 'normal" games but just set up "shoots" to show off the models in battle scenes for coolness value.

I always place itwith the wall, not always touching it out of principle. For no other reason the cover save is likely better there than anywhere else andI want my camo/stealth unit to be able to fire it.lol

I don't think that one can compare a vehicle unit to any fortification as once the model is fully assembled properly, the vehicle has all guns attached; however, fortifications (specifically the ADL and bastion) have separate components for the gun emplacements and the comms relay.

The picture in the BRB for the ADL shows an option for how to deploy it - in a ring with the gun inside; however, the FAQ has stated it just has to be a continual, solid chain of sections and thus can be deployed in a straight line instead of a closed loop.

Moving away from the ADL as the example - I think a better example would be a Bastion.

Like the ADL, the Bastion has the option to include a comms relay, or one of two gun emplacements. The example image for the Bastion shows that the comms relay is NOT on top; however, pretty much everyone places the gun emplacement for the Bastion on top (because it truly is a good place to put it due to the LoS angles).

So for a Bastion, do you have to put the comms relay or gun emplacement on top?

Noone knows.

 EVIL INC wrote:
ragile if you read my post, you will see that I said I could not tell but it looked too far away to be touching and that I could be wrong. Were you there when they took that photo? If you were, you could have physically leaned over and shot a 2nd photograph to show it from the top looking down which would have showed it it was touching or not.To all appearances to ME, it looks like it is not touching, you might see it as touching. Until, you are able to prove that it is touching in the picture,

You apparently are confused. No where in this thread did I say it was touching, perhaps you have the wrong person. The point is that it cannot be determined from that picture, which was my debate with DR.

 EVIL INC wrote:

I asked what was illegal about the setup because I was told in this thread that it was not an example of a legal deployment. I was just curious to know what about it was illegal since I was told it was not an example of a legal deployment

You're still missing the point. It's not an example of deployment at all, legal or otherwise. It's just a picture of the ADL, so you know what it looks like.

Well, Stronghold Assault is out with updated fortification rules, and this now has an answer.

The quad gun may be placed within 6" of the fortification it is purchased with.

If the fortification is a building, you can choose to place it on top, which makes it an emplaced weapon. Or you can place it within 6", which makes it a gun emplacement.

Yay. Problem solved.

Why oh why didn't GW FAQ this after 6th edition release? I can't have been the only one sending an e-mail query to their faq address.

Arson Fire wrote:
Well, Stronghold Assault is out with updated fortification rules, and this now has an answer.

The quad gun may be placed within 6" of the fortification it is purchased with.

If the fortification is a building, you can choose to place it on top, which makes it an emplaced weapon. Or you can place it within 6", which makes it a gun emplacement.

Yay. Problem solved.

Anyone confirm this?

Making it an emplaced weapon on top versus weapon emplacement on the ground would require a BRB errata as it totally contradicts the data sheet on the bastion.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Anyone confirm this?

Making it an emplaced weapon on top versus weapon emplacement on the ground would require a BRB errata as it totally contradicts the data sheet on the bastion.

If Stronghold Assault is an update to the fortification rules, you don't also need an errata to the original rules... That's what the update does.


Although having to buy a separate book to make up for the fact that they didn't bother finishing the fortification rules for the rulebook is irritating.

There are new data sheets for all of the fortifications.
Quad-guns are now part of a large list of generic upgrades that can be bought for pretty much any of them.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:
Well, Stronghold Assault is out with updated fortification rules, and this now has an answer.

The quad gun may be placed within 6" of the fortification it is purchased with.

If the fortification is a building, you can choose to place it on top, which makes it an emplaced weapon. Or you can place it within 6", which makes it a gun emplacement.

Yay. Problem solved.

Anyone confirm this?

Making it an emplaced weapon on top versus weapon emplacement on the ground would require a BRB errata as it totally contradicts the data sheet on the bastion.

Waiting patiently for iTunes to let me download my copy of the book. If this is addressed I'll be very happy. Hopefully the BRB FAQ will be updated to point to Stronghold Assault like they did for Death in the Skies. Another player over on a Dark Eldar forum stated that the book introduction states that the rules contained supersede the BRB's unlike Escalation's which reads them as optional. Hopefully I can read my copies soon.

Still waiting on my copy but double checking a few rules, this one is big. If putting the quad gun on the fortification building makes it emplaced, then it cannot be targeted on its own; you'd have to destroy the fortification to destroy the gun (or get lucky on the building damage table). In reading up on this, it is how the bastion should have always been since on page 97 it explicitly calls a quad gun on top of a bastion an emplaced weapon - thus should not be able to be directly targeted.

 insaniak wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Anyone confirm this?

Making it an emplaced weapon on top versus weapon emplacement on the ground would require a BRB errata as it totally contradicts the data sheet on the bastion.

If Stronghold Assault is an update to the fortification rules, you don't also need an errata to the original rules... That's what the update does.


Although having to buy a separate book to make up for the fact that they didn't bother finishing the fortification rules for the rulebook is irritating.

But you do, SA is a supplement, not the core rules. If your using SA you can use those rules but if your not, your still stuck in this mess and need the FAQ/errata, like the flyers did.

A supplement is not the same as an expansion...

Fragile- my bad, it WAS someone else who said it was touching. I was wrong in saying that it was you, but I am still right that there is no way to know for sure it is is or not.

the wall in the picture is set up as an example in that there are models with it making use of it and the pieces are placed in a manner to show a "battke scene". had it been based "purely" to show what the wall looked like, they would have been better off to line the pieces up so that you could see them all, how many of each piece there was and so forth. however as we all know they are known to set up illegal pictures for the sake of showing the imagery of the game and so forth. Usually not in these particular cases. the point of the question was that it is a picture of the wall given as an example, whether as an example of the wall itself or as the picture leads you to believe, an example of it eployed, does not matter. The question I asked was is it or is it not a legal deployment of said imperial wall (a yes or no question).That you have skirted answering beyond saying "It is not an indication of legal setup. "

Finally got my SA book.

The updated rules are said to be updated from what is in the BRB; however they do call them out as being completely optional. Some of the clarifications do address my question in the OP. As Arson Fire posted.

Ultimately, since the ADL is not a building, the gun emplacement has to be within 6" of a wall segment. Per SA, it does not have to touch, just be fairly close.

 Unholyllama wrote:
Finally got my SA book.

The updated rules are said to be updated from what is in the BRB; however they do call them out as being completely optional. Some of the clarifications do address my question in the OP. As Arson Fire posted.

Ultimately, since the ADL is not a building, the gun emplacement has to be within 6" of a wall segment. Per SA, it does not have to touch, just be fairly close.

Hoping that shows up in a holiday FAQ. Actually hoping a lot of the fortication stuff shows up in a BRB FAQ.

Per the new book you have it separate, wholly within 6" of the Fortification

I always play it this way, though it's more of a house rule than any official ruling. As long as you place the gun within the approximate boundary of the aegis line, it's okay. If you place the barricade in a line with the gun a few inches behind, awesome. Place the line in a big circle with the gun in the middle? Great. Place the line in a slight curve with the gun somewhere else on the map? That's when I start to complain.