Positioning an Aegis defence line

[Cactus]

Apologies if this has been discussed before but I couldn't find an existing topic, nor is it in the FAQ.

 

My assumption had been that an Aegis defence line must be deployed as a single continuous section. For example in a straight line, a circle, a V or even an X. However last weekend it was pointed out to me that the rule actually says:

 

 

Each section of Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section

 

To me this says that it's fine to group the eight sections into two, three or four sub-lines. For example two separate rings, each consisting of two large and two small sections, or four separate lines of two sections each.

 

What say my brothers and sisters of the B&C?

[Ammonius]

Check the Shrine of Knowledge:

 

https://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170233a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf

 

"Q: Can you deploy the Aegis Defence Line sections in two or more
groups of two or more sections apiece (this way, they will still be in
base contact with at least one other section)? (p114)
A: No – the Aegis defence line sections must be deployed
in an unbroken chain, though they can be connected endto-
end such as in the example shown on page 114."

[Cactus]

Cheers Ammonius. Would you believe I did check that as I was posting, and even read the entry immediately below it, but totally missed the paragraph that answered my question? In future I will resolve my rules queries before opening the merlot.

Oh well, it's recorded here now for future reference so maybe my five minutes typing will be of benefit to somebody else.

[Eddie Orlock]

Perhaps a stranger follow-up is: Does the line have to be flush with the table surface?

 

Could I bridge the gap between two of the shorter pieces with a longer one to produce an elevated firing platform? Assuming I could do this, could I then set another section in a conventional orientation atop this 'mini-bunker' to provide cover for the figures ~2" off the table?

 

Why you ask? So the dev squad can see over the hill just in front of my deployment zone.

 

Further follow on, having built this bridge, can I stick my quad-gun atop it?

[Disruptor_fe404]

Eddie Orlock, I like the way you think, good sir.

[Squirrelloid]

Perhaps a stranger follow-up is: Does the line have to be flush with the table surface?

 

Could I bridge the gap between two of the shorter pieces with a longer one to produce an elevated firing platform? Assuming I could do this, could I then set another section in a conventional orientation atop this 'mini-bunker' to provide cover for the figures ~2" off the table?

 

Why you ask? So the dev squad can see over the hill just in front of my deployment zone.

 

Further follow on, having built this bridge, can I stick my quad-gun atop it?

 

Can you normally deploy models *on* Aegis defense line components?  I ask because if you tried to deploy a marine *on* your tank it would obviously be no, so unless there's precedent for deploying models on top of Aegis components, I'd think it would be similarly illegitimate.

 

Something like skypad, however, can definitely have models deployed on top of it... can you deploy a fortification on a fortification?  Should we interpret the existence of other fortifications that can have models on them as evidence that an aegis, even if it normally can't, isn't prohibited in theory?

 

ug.

[Cactus]

The Aegis defence line is battlefield debris (page 114) and battlefield debris is difficult terrain (page 104). I see no reason you can't deploy or move on to battlefield debris.

Eddie's suggestion however appears to me to be pure gamesmanship. It's a clever piece of lateral thinking but anyone who seriously tried that in a game with me would soon be looking for another opponent. Some arguments just aren't worth having. However it does beg another question - where should the quad gun / comms relay / icarus lascannon be positioned in relation to the rest of the Aegis? Presumably it's part of the Aegis, being an upgrade, so it should "be placed in base contact with at least one other section". Which makes the photograph on page 114, referred to in the FAQ, illegal.

[Disruptor_fe404]

I always figured that photo was illegal after reading that line.

[Eddie Orlock]

The commentary I've heard in the past is that the gun/comm link isn't actually part of the line and canbe placed as a stand alone object.

 

Perhaps a less egregious example would be could they be tipped on their ends to provide taller cover to conceal taller vehicles?

 

With regard to placing models on it in a conventional lay out during a game, I guess I've long subscribed to the notion that if the model can balance where it's placed and the rules allow it to get there, then yes it is there. I have in the past balanced figures atop walls and have done so on the ageis line.

 

I'm not totally sold on the utility of the 'stacked ageis' as what might be gained in elevation is certainly lost on horizontal coverage. Feels like a very niche idea. Actually, if I was facing a bike close combat list, would being on an artificial bridge count as being a level up and if I could get all the squaddies up their would it theroetically deny the charge?

 

While where talking about over layed terrain, suppose we had to multi-layer ruins proximal but not contiguous with each other, could the, presumably long bits, of the ageis wall be used to span the gap as a bridge?

 

Speaking to the comments about skyshields, if at 2K I took two org charts, one with a sky shield, another with a bastion, could I stack the bastion atop a furled skyshield? If so, would the bastion get a 4+ invulnerable save from shooting attacks? How high off the table would the icarus atop the bastion be?

[Seahawk]

It is against the rules to have any fortifications anywhere except flush on the table's surface. 

 

"Next players must place any fortifications they have in their armies before placing any other terrain." (p.120)

 

 

Since you place your wall before the hill hits the table, then you'd be putting the hill on the wall, not the other way around. ;)

[Morollan]

It is against the rules to have any fortifications anywhere except flush on the table's surface.

"Next players must place any fortifications they have in their armies before placing any other terrain." (p.120)

Since you place your wall before the hill hits the table, then you'd be putting the hill on the wall, not the other way around.

That assumes that you are using the alternative method of placing terrain, rather than the default narrative method.

[Eddie Orlock]

It is against the rules to have any fortifications anywhere except flush on the table's surface.

"Next players must place any fortifications they have in their armies before placing any other terrain." (p.120)

Since you place your wall before the hill hits the table, then you'd be putting the hill on the wall, not the other way around.

What if the table is pre-modeled? Perhaps someones assembled their Citadel Realm of Battle with the elevated bits in the middle and you want to see over the hill crest?

Would the realm of battle tiles be considered terrain and thus would have to be place atop the ageis line? Does this effectively make any fortification essentially non-playable on any such surface?

[Seahawk]

It is against the rules to have any fortifications anywhere except flush on the table's surface.

"Next players must place any fortifications they have in their armies before placing any other terrain." (p.120)

Since you place your wall before the hill hits the table, then you'd be putting the hill on the wall, not the other way around.

That assumes that you are using the alternative method of placing terrain, rather than the default narrative method.

No, it's actually always the case, as it's written before either terrain set up and has no single connection to either.

What if the table is pre-modeled? Perhaps someones assembled their Citadel Realm of Battle with the elevated bits in the middle and you want to see over the hill crest?

Would the realm of battle tiles be considered terrain and thus would have to be place atop the ageis line? Does this effectively make any fortification essentially non-playable on any such surface?

Smart, and tricky to answer off-the-cuff. We then go try to find a definition for terrain: "Open ground covers everything from dusty plains to rolling hills. Any area not specifically classed as a type of terrain (such as a building, ruin, forest, river, battlefield wreckage or unique terrain is considered open ground."

Here's the kick: they aren't really rolling hills. They have a defined, rocky escarpment, make them difficult terrain hill pieces. Every tournament I've been to has counted the rocky parts as difficult terrain (and so can't be within 3" with forts or other terrain) and all the flat rolling parts as open terrain, exactly as the book prescribes. For fantasy, they do indeed count as a hill, because a hill is a piece of terrain, so it all in all the RoB board is really just a big sucky waste of money (and I haven't even gone into the electric slide problem they give to models!).

So, you could have the aegis line on top of the RoB tile hill, or to the side of it, but not within 3" of the rocky outcrops.

Obviously, in the end it's entirely up to you and your opponent how you truly want to play. If everything is premodeled on, you may of course make exceptions, but you must realize that that's exactly what you are doing. Any further finagling of the rules (such as the wall-stacking idea) really have no place in such a game, and shouldn't be bothered with.

[Eddie Orlock]

Smart, and tricky to answer off-the-cuff.

Thanks, I do my best to ask 'interesting' questions around here.

... Every tournament I've been to has counted the rocky parts as difficult terrain (and so can't be within 3" with forts or other terrain) and all the flat rolling parts as open terrain, exactly as the book prescribes. ...

While I admit my tournement experience is limited, it appears to be very divergant from yours. When I've encountered the RoB boards, almost universally the escarpments get ruled as open ground with a citation that they're less than an inch in height. Except when we played Epic, then they became impassible cliffs owing to the scale of them. This may just be edition hangover in customary play practices.

 

Most events I've attended tend to specify that the arrangement of terrain on the field is to be considered fixed and is not to be adjusted by the players. These may wind up being event specific modifications though. Regardless if you had fortifications, you squeezed them in afterward.

 

Most games I've played wind up with what I'll call 'customary play conventions' invoked that in many cases outright ignore the text of the rule book when defining the table set up, but I do find it valuable to know what rules are being ignored and how.

[Grey Mage]

It says you have to place fortifications first, not that they must be flush with the table....

 

Probably because no one was squirrelly enough try this during playtests.

[Eddie Orlock]

It says you have to place fortifications first, not that they must be flush with the table....

Maybe we're looking in the wrong place, is there a more general rule about placing models 'right way up' that we could fall back to? Perhaps near where it talks about base size or something in the preamble?

 

While I'm exploring this gamey subject, if nothing requires models to be placed 'on the level' could I tip a SkyShield on its side to conceal a really big thing? In the end, it may come back to this being a permissive rule set where if it's not permitted, it's prohibited. Or that tilted landing pads aren't congruent with nice narratives.

[Cactus]

While I'm exploring this gamey subject, if nothing requires models to be placed 'on the level' could I tip a SkyShield on its side to conceal a really big thing? In the end, it may come back to this being a permissive rule set where if it's not permitted, it's prohibited. Or that tilted landing pads aren't congruent with nice narratives.

I feel that tilted landed pads aren't congruent with people agreeing to play you again. The only applicable rule is on page 4. I'll let you guess which one I mean.