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.

Aegis Defense Lines Provide a 3+ cover save. Here's why:

Games Workshop wrote: BRB, pg 109, Fortification: This section of the Force Organization chart represents purpose-built, battlefield defenses.

BRB pg 18, Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a4+ or 5+ cover save. Unlike units, fortifications are not found in codexes. Instead, you'Il find a selection presented in this book (see page 114).
Cover CHART
Razor wire 6+
Forests and area terrain 5+
Ruined fortifications 4+
Fortifications 3+

BRB, pg 114, Fortifications: Aegis Defense Line. Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines)

BRB, pg 120, Placing fortifications, Players must place any fortifications they have before placing any other terrain.

BRB, pg 104, Defense Lines, Defense lines follow all the same rules for barricades and walls except that a unit that decides to go to ground behind a defense line gains +2 to it's cover save.
Barricades and Walls, If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a 4+ cover save. For the purposes of charge moves, models that are both in base contact with a barricade and within 2" of each other are treated as being in base contact. Despite the models on either side not literally being in base contact, the combatants fight nonetheless.

BRB, Pg 96, FORTIFICATIONS AND DILAPIDATION
In the choosing your Army section(pg. 108) you'll see that you can add some buildings to your army, allowing your troops to deploy in and fight from a strong position. You might also use some of the fortifications as 'neutral' buildings on the battlefield. In this case, simply treat all fortifications not bought for either you or your opponent's army as being dilapidated.

Reviewing these quotes, it's clear that when they were written, it was intended for purpose-built fortifications(ie, ADL) to offer a 3+ cover save. In every instance of talking about "Fortifications", the only way to read it is as defined in the FoC section of the book. The book states that you may use these things as normal neutral terrain, or that you can purchase them as part of your FoC, in which case they are considered purpose-built fortifications, and offer a better cover save and armor.

Now, why then do SO MANY people quote them as being a 4+ cover save? Simple. In the "normal terrain" section of the BRB, it states defense lines offer a 4+ cover save. This is a generic term for a ruined wall, a bunker, or whatever. The aegis defense line's Terrain Type is defense line. That certainly adds a bit of confusion for the average onlooker, armed with all of the above information, so let's try to clear that up a bit.

Movement is important in 40k, and a big part of movement is understanding what kind of terrain you're crossing, and how that effects the movement of the unit that is crossing it. Due to this, every piece of terrain in the game has to be defined by a terrain type. In the case of generic, neutral terrain, like an un-owned defense line, it offers a generic cover save, which is also listed. This should not be mistaken for the cover save provided by purpose built fortifications, as described elsewhere. Purpose-built fortifications are simply given a terrain type to define how units move over and interact with them.

The absolute shameful part of this, is that I suspect people at GW who didn't write the rules, and don't play the game, don't even know the difference. It's like the people who work there don't even know the game that they write FAQs about sometimes.

RAW is convoluted in this case and can be argued either way.
RAI, in my opinion, is clear.

If you have any further doubts about RAI, chew on this: While I know many don't do this so much, the BRB encourages people to place their own terrain, taking turns as described in that section. Why would anyone ever buy an aegis defense line for 50 points that provides the same cover save as a ruined wall that they could place on the table for free?

Defense Lines, Defense lines follow all the same rules for barricades and walls except that a unit that decides to go to ground behind a defense line gains +2 to it's cover save.
Barricades and Walls, If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a 4+ cover save.

There is no exception made for the cover save, only for going to ground behind one.

So a general statement about Fortifications causes you to ignore the part where it states that Defence lines give a 4+ save?
It's crystal clear that in the specific case of the ADL, it's a 4+. You're quotes don't show otherwise.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:


If you have any further doubts about RAI, chew on this: While I know many don't do this so much, the BRB encourages people to place their own terrain, taking turns as described in that section. Why would anyone ever buy an aegis defense line for 50 points that provides the same cover save as a ruined wall that they could place on the table for free?

In every tournament I have been to, terrain was pre-placed. So you would take an ADL to give you some cover in areas with good tactical advantage where there was none to begin with. Oh, and you can attach a really good AA gun to it for cheap, which for most armies is the only AA they will get.

Also, some of what you quoted is <gasp> contradictory. I dont have my BRB here at work, but I am going to assume that GW didnt mean the ADL to be a "Fortification" with regards to the BRB reference on pg 18, but rather a Defensive line. If you went to ground behind a "fortification" would you get a 1+ cover save, as going to ground behind a Defensive line gives you +2 to your cover save?

Bottom line, a "Fortification" that the BRB is referring to on pg 18 would be something like a bunker, a pill-box, or something along those lines like you see in the WWII movies, not a short wall that allows models behind it to easily fire over it.

So you mean the bit, where ADL is called a

page 114, Aegis Defence lines Paragraph 3 wrote: Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines)

So, let's have a look at what a Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) is, shall we?

Page 104, Battlefield Debris: Defence Lines wrote:... follow all the same rules for barricades and walls, except that a unit that decides to go to ground behind a defence line gains +2 to its coversave, rather than +1.

So, let's have a look at Barricades and Walls, shall we?

Page104, Battlefield Debris: Barricades and Walls wrote:If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a 4+ cover save.

That was really hard for me to figure out, I know. I bent so many rules to come to that very clear conclusion.

Now, if we have a look at Page 96, which talks about fortifications, we see that that is under the heading buildings.

What does it mean to be a building?

page 92, Buildings: Buildings vs Ruins wrote:If your structure is fully enclosed and has a roof, use the rules presented here.

An ADL is not a building and thus does not benefit (or rather, is not hindered) by the Delapidation rules found under the Terrain: Building part of the Rulebook.

You'll furthermore notice that Imperial Bastions are specifically referred to as Medium Building.

Please, now argue to me that a Skyshield is a building as well - because the rules "Unique" typing is rather, as you'd say, unique.

I'm not sure I get it...

EDIT... I didn't. Disregard.

 Purifier wrote:

One you purchase is brought with you, fresh from the ADL factory. They ARE different types of terrain.

Only in as far as one can place the piece, the other should be set up before the game.

I encourage you all to take the time to read the entire post. It has all the evidence you need if you are someone decent at reading comprehension.

The reason there are conflicting quotes, is because GW published them that way. I wasn't going to only quote the things that were beneficial to my position here. I quoted them all.

So, to those of you stating that an ADL isn't a fortification, when the book is obviously differentiating between an ADL and a regular defense line, I challenge you to prove to me what it is they're talking about when they say "Purpose Built Fortification". Buildings don't provide people inside them cover saves because you can't shoot at them. It is as if they are embarked in a building. The only "purpose built fortification" represented in the rules, that provides a cover save, is the ADL.

Allow me to highlight the most pertinent bits:

Games Workshop wrote:
BRB pg 18, Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save. Unlike units, fortifications are not found in codexes. Instead, you'Il find a selection presented in this book (see page 114).
Cover CHART
Razor wire 6+
Forests and area terrain 5+
Ruined fortifications 4+
Fortifications 3+

BRB, pg 114, Aegis Defense Line

The First and ONLY fortification on that page is the ADL. It lists the cover save for fortifications, and immediately after sayin 3+ for fortifications, it specifically references the page that the ADL is on.

FURTHER:

Games Workshop wrote:
BRB, pg 109, Fortification: This section of the Force Organization chart represents purpose-built, battlefield defenses.

BRB pg 18, Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save

In plain English, it says, if you purchase something in the fortification slot of your force organization chart, it is defined as a purpose-built fortification. In the cover chart, purpose-built fortifications provide a 3+ cover save.

The ONLY section that anyone refers to when trying to say it only gets a 4+, is the generic terrain section. But a fortification isn't a generic piece of terrain. It's a fortification.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I encourage you all to take the time to read the entire post. It has all the evidence you need if you are someone decent at reading comprehension.

Stopped reading here.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
So you mean the bit, where ADL is called a

page 114, Aegis Defence lines Paragraph 3 wrote: Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines)

So, let's have a look at what a Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) is, shall we?

Page 104, Battlefield Debris: Defence Lines wrote:... follow all the same rules for barricades and walls, except that a unit that decides to go to ground behind a defence line gains +2 to its coversave, rather than +1.

So, let's have a look at Barricades and Walls, shall we?

Page104, Battlefield Debris: Barricades and Walls wrote:If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a 4+ cover save.

That was really hard for me to figure out, I know. I bent so many rules to come to that very clear conclusion.

Now, if we have a look at Page 96, which talks about fortifications, we see that that is under the heading buildings.

What does it mean to be a building?

page 92, Buildings: Buildings vs Ruins wrote:If your structure is fully enclosed and has a roof, use the rules presented here.

An ADL is not a building and thus does not benefit (or rather, is not hindered) by the Delapidation rules found under the Terrain: Building part of the Rulebook.

You'll furthermore notice that Imperial Bastions are specifically referred to as Medium Building.

Please, now argue to me that a Skyshield is a building as well - because the rules "Unique" typing is rather, as you'd say, unique.

How did this not already end the debate? Scipio broke it down perfectly.

If the ADL is a 3+ cover save, then the +2 cover save for going to ground would be redundant, would it not?

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
If the ADL is a 3+ cover save, then the +2 cover save for going to ground would be redundant, would it not?

Just to be the devil's advocate, no, it wouldn't. Since the battlefield debris version would still benefit from that.

A Bastion is a fortification, so gives a 3+ save...yet, the battlements on the top of it per GW's FAQ are a 4+ save.

Why? Because they are walls & barricades (on top of the building).

So it is clearly possible for a 'fortification' to provide a save besides 3+.

The ADL provides a 4+ save.

 yakface wrote:

A Bastion is a fortification, so gives a 3+ save...yet, the battlements on the top of it per GW's FAQ are a 4+ save.

Why? Because they are walls & barricades (on top of the building).

So it is clearly possible for a 'fortification' to provide a save besides 3+.

The ADL provides a 4+ save.

How does the bastion provide a 3+ cover save when you can't target the units inside it? They are, for all intents and purposes, inside a vehicle. The ONLY things that you can target them with ignore cover saves.

That would make the entire 3+ for fortifications mentioned a completely redundant and useless line of text.

Insofar as the battlements FAQ goes, I know what you mean. It's like the people who write those don't even play the game sometimes, and barely know the rules.

It also draws a distinction between a fortification that is purchased for your FoC, and one that is just used as a generic piece of battlefield terrain. In the FoC section, it specifically defines anything purchased in the FoC slot as "A purpose-built fortification".

The book says purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 yakface wrote:

A Bastion is a fortification, so gives a 3+ save...yet, the battlements on the top of it per GW's FAQ are a 4+ save.

Why? Because they are walls & barricades (on top of the building).

So it is clearly possible for a 'fortification' to provide a save besides 3+.

The ADL provides a 4+ save.

How does the bastion provide a 3+ cover save when you can't target the units inside it? They are, for all intents and purposes, inside a vehicle. The ONLY things that you can target them with ignore cover saves.

That would make the entire 3+ for fortifications mentioned a completely redundant and useless line of text.

Insofar as the battlements FAQ goes, I know what you mean. It's like the people who write those don't even play the game sometimes, and barely know the rules.

It also draws a distinction between a fortification that is purchased for your FoC, and one that is just used as a generic piece of battlefield terrain. In the FoC section, it specifically defines anything purchased in the FoC slot as "A purpose-built fortification".

The book says purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save.

What cover save would you say a vehicle standing with more than 25% covered behind a bastion gets?

I would absolutely hate to have this guy in my gaming group. I bet all his pals can't stand the fact that he refuses to acknowledge the distinction between 'general' and 'specific.' Here we have the Aegis Defense Line, which is specifically a "Defense Line."

 Smashotron wrote:
I would absolutely hate to have this guy in my gaming group. I bet all his pals can't stand the fact that he refuses to acknowledge the distinction between 'general' and 'specific.' Here we have the Aegis Defense Line, which is specifically a "Defense Line."

But it can either be a purpose-built, new defense line (fortification), or a dilapidated defense line (generic terrain that you don't pay for).

In the first case, it would be 3+ because you paid 50 points for it. In the second, it's 4+ because it's just like every other crumbling brick wall on the battlefield.

EDIT: And you know what I hate? When people refuse to think for themselves, read ALL the information provided, and respond in a composed, mature manner. I spent a long time digging up all the BRB quotes here, and half the people didn't even read them completely and think about them before posting.

It's always possible that the status quo is incorrect, and there is nothing wrong with challenging that status quo when there is cause.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Aegis Defense Lines Provide a 3+ cover save. Here's why:

BRB, pg 114, Fortifications: Aegis Defense Line. Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines)

BRB, pg 104, Defense Lines, Defense lines follow all the same rules for barricades and walls except that a unit that decides to go to ground behind a defense line gains +2 to it's cover save.

Barricades and Walls, If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a 4+ cover save. For the purposes of charge moves, models that are both in base contact with a barricade and within 2" of each other are treated as being in base contact. Despite the models on either side not literally being in base contact, the combatants fight nonetheless.

It's almost like you're choosing to completely ignore the ADL's specific rules or something, even though you quoted them in your OP. RAW is not convoluted at all. It's quite specific in fact. The "terrain type" covers more than just movement. The ADL is "Terrain Type : Battlefield Debris (Defense Lines)". As such, it follows ALL rules for Defense Lines, which states it follows ALL rules for Barricades and Walls (except the added +2 cover save if GtG). What is included in all rules for Defense lines? 4+ cover save.

Betray - what cover save does a Bastion provide to a model obscured by 25%?

Why does the Aegis Defence Line specifically state it is a defense line?

Your argument is flawed, accept that and move on.

If it makes you feel better Betray, everyone I've ever seen has run it as a 3+. The voluminous amount of responses ganging up on you has actually made me call that into question. I don't have a book to hand, though, so I'm going to have to look it up later on and get a handle on it myself. If nothing else, I think that the Aegis Defense Line clearly fits into the 'purpose built fortifications' category.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - what cover save does a Bastion provide to a model obscured by 25%?

Why does the Aegis Defence Line specifically state it is a defense line?

Your argument is flawed, accept that and move on.

It doesn't specifically state it's a defense line for cover purposes. It says "Terrain Type". Battlefield Dibris(Defense Lines) have an effect on units trying to move through them. The terrain type is necessary to know what that effect is.

If we follow the logic being offered here, then a bastion doesn't have a listed cover save, because it's "Terrain Type" is medium building, which isn't listed in the terrain section as providing a cover.

 Jimsolo wrote:
If it makes you feel better Betray, everyone I've ever seen has run it as a 3+. The voluminous amount of responses ganging up on you has actually made me call that into question. I don't have a book to hand, though, so I'm going to have to look it up later on and get a handle on it myself. If nothing else, I think that the Aegis Defense Line clearly fits into the 'purpose built fortifications' category.

I appreciate you going against the grain and speaking up here. Feel free to have another look at the rules if you like, but I really have just copy/pasted everything in my original post, and didn't leave out any information that would support the other side of the argument. I actually expected this to be a far less hostile thread, and anticipated more people would read all of the rules, and think for themselves instead of going with the status quo. Naive of me, I know.

Betray, I see your point about the Purpose Built Fortification and how ADL relate to that despite being a defense line. Seems like it could have the properties of a generic defense line but also be a Purpose Built Fortification and have some exceptions to the generic rules. Like Jimsolo, I don't have my BRB at work, so I'll have to check it out myself later. But thanks for bringing this up- there could be something to what you say.

So it is a Defense Line, not a fortification. Purpose built fortification or not, it is a defense line

Again, what is the cover save of a model obscured 25% by a bastion?

I've looked through you're quotes and the relevent rules twice now. Sorry, still can't agree here. There's simply nothing to suggest I shouldn't follow the rules for defence lines, or ignore part of them.
Defence lines give a 4+ cover save, the ADL is a Defence Line as defined in entry. I'm simply not seeing anything that would suggest ignoring these rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

#1, So it is a Defense Line,
#2, not a fortification.
#3, Purpose built fortification or not, it is a defense line
#4, Again, what is the cover save of a model obscured 25% by a bastion?

1. Correct, for the purposes of determining movement.
2. Wrong, unless you're telling me I can place it for free, because I only have to pay for fortifications.
3. Redundant. You said that already.
4. You tell me. Then tell me where it says that, since a bastion is defined as a "Medium Building" by your logic.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

#1, So it is a Defense Line,

1. Correct, for the purposes of determining movement.

Why only for determining movement?
What rule tells you this? And what rule tells you to ignore the cover save?

Dont put words in my mouth

Your attitude so far has not been conducive to wanting to respond, so I will bow out here. You have no persuasive argument logically, and your presentation is off putting.

The OP has a point. Look at the explination picture on page 19. The top three (red circled) orcs are standing behind a ruin and get a 4+ cover save. Why in the world would I want to pay 50 points for a 4+ cover save when I can just put something down and get the same thing for free?

If an ADL is not a Fortification then when exactly should I put it on the field?

 grendel083 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

#1, So it is a Defense Line,

1. Correct, for the purposes of determining movement.

Why only for determining movement?
What rule tells you this? And what rule tells you to ignore the cover save?

The one that tells me that fortifications I pay for give me a 3+ cover save. It's actually a two-part, section. You have to read both sentences.

1. Fortifications as part of your force organization chart: "These represent purpose-built battlefield defenses."
2. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save.

The only place fortifications are defined in the book is in the FoC section. That definition is, a fortification purchased as part of your army. Fortifications purchased as part of your army are in better shape, and function better than standard battlefield garbage, as described in the dilapidation section, and inferred through the listing of 3+ for fortifications.

And the "Basic Vs. Advanced" rule on Page 7?
If the rules for an AGL say it gives a 4+ cover save, then it matters not what the general cover save of fortifications is.