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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

I quoted you exactly, only numbering your points for my responses. I find it convenient that no one can point out the answer to your question about what cover save a bastion gives without defaulting to my "failed logic", or something else that has no basis in the rules.

To answer the question for you, it would give a 3+ cover save, just like every other fortification. That is, unless it was placed on the board as a generic piece of battlefield terrain, in which case it would grant a 4+ save, like other dilapidated ruins/buildings.

 grendel083 wrote:
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.

Then lucky for me the rules for ADL DON'T say that. The ADL lists it's terrain type. The rule for that terrain type is listed elsewhere, talking about generic terrain. The ADL also says it's a fortification, as it's specifically listed for purchase under the HUGE word fortification. Both the 3+ fortification rule, and the 4+ defense line rule come from parts of the book OTHER than the listing for the ADL.

Purifier wrote:

 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.

Betray, you do realise that in formal argument as soon as you insult your opponents you lose, right?

If you were any good at reading comprehension, you'd see that ADL can never benefit from a rule designed for buildings, because it is not building.

I re-refer your "exceptional" reading comprehension to the definition of a building

Page 92, Buildings, Box: Buildings Vs Ruins wrote:
Essentially if your structure is fully enclosed and has a roof, use the rules presented here.

Please, prove to me that an ADL is a building before you use the dilapidation rules as a point.

Grendel, wouldn't Pupose Built Fortifications be more specific than the general rules for battlefield debris (defense lines)? If the ADL is a Purpose Built Fortification (as it appears to be since it is listed as such, you purchase it for your army, and place it separately to other terrain), then logically it follows that it would have different rules than those for general terrain?

Edit- spelling...

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

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.

1. Incorrect. It is a Defense Line.

2. No, It's a Fortification for the Force Organisation Chart this is why the unit cars call them fortifications and no other reason. Are you trying to say that a unit that takes up no slot (and some do) are taken for free as well?

3. Maybe.

4. His Logic is the rulebook, what's your logic?

Page 116, Terrain Type: wrote:
Medium Building (Armour Value 14).

Now, the fact that the rules on page 75 the rules tell us

Page 75 wrote:
If the target is obscured... (suffers a hit) it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.

I'm the one with bad reading comprehension, huh?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beast wrote:
Grendel, wouldn't Pupose Built Fortifications be more specific than the general rules for battlefield debris (defense lines)? If the ADL is a purpose Built Fortification (as it appears to be since it islisted as such, you purchase it for your army, and place it separately to other terrain), then logically it follows that it would have different rules that those for general terrain?

The rules on page 18 are less specific than the rules on page 104.

I feel like this is the kind of person who would argue this point with the person who wrote the rulebook. Someone allready summed up the correct way to read this, and you would think if you were right, one of the thousand's of other players might have spotted that by now.

Beast wrote:
Grendel, wouldn't Pupose Built Fortifications be more specific than the general rules for battlefield debris (defense lines)? If the ADL is a purpose Built Fortification (as it appears to be since it islisted as such, you purchase it for your army, and place it separately to other terrain), then logically it follows that it would have different rules that those for general terrain?

Actually no it wouldn't.
Looking further into the rules there are infact two types of Fortification.
One is a terrain type.
One is item purchased for your army and uses up the "Fortification slot". These have a terrain type listed in their entry.

A ADL not listed as using the terrain type "Fortifiaction", it is listed as "Defence line". "Purpose Built Fortification" or indeed the generic "Fortifcation" simply do not apply to the already defined ADL.

What this does bring up is "what cover save does a Medium building grant?" in the case of things like the bastion. This is up to interpretation slightly, but i'd suggest it fits the description of a Fortified Building and should be counted as Terrian type: Fortification for determining cover saves. YMMV

I think I better stay out of this one since I don't have my BRB with me to cite/check specifics and assertions. Seems like a not-so-cut-and-dried issue though from the counter-arguments so far... Hope it gets resolved since A LOT of people around here use ADLs. Thanks for bringing it up Betray...

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Purifier wrote:

 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.

Betray, you do realise that in formal argument as soon as you insult your opponents you lose, right?

If you were any good at reading comprehension, you'd see that ADL can never benefit from a rule designed for buildings, because it is not building.

I re-refer your "exceptional" reading comprehension to the definition of a building

Page 92, Buildings, Box: Buildings Vs Ruins wrote:
Essentially if your structure is fully enclosed and has a roof, use the rules presented here.

Please, prove to me that an ADL is a building before you use the dilapidation rules as a point.

This is a straw man. None of that is listed anywhere near the rules for fortifications in the FoC, or the 3+ cover saves. That information was solely provided to show the context in which the writers defined a difference between a fortification and terrain not purchased with your army.

And to your first comment, if pointing out that people who are responding obviously didn't read the entire post and comprehend it is an insult, then maybe they should read the post and save themself the face. It was glaringly obvious that several people didn't read my entire post. Perhaps that's my fault for performing the due diligence of looking up all the pertinent information first, and posting a WoT. But then I didn't force them to post in a thread that they didn't fully read the topic on either.

The person you quoted even edited his post to point out that his original response was in error, having not understood. Either way, I'm not going to defend myself further on this point. If you obviously didn't understand a post, or didn't read it, I'm gonna call you on it.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

I quoted you exactly, only numbering your points for my responses. I find it convenient that no one can point out the answer to your question about what cover save a bastion gives without defaulting to my "failed logic", or something else that has no basis in the rules.

To answer the question for you, it would give a 3+ cover save, just like every other fortification. That is, unless it was placed on the board as a generic piece of battlefield terrain, in which case it would grant a 4+ save, like other dilapidated ruins/buildings.

 grendel083 wrote:
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.

Then lucky for me the rules for ADL DON'T say that. The ADL lists it's terrain type. The rule for that terrain type is listed elsewhere, talking about generic terrain. The ADL also says it's a fortification, as it's specifically listed for purchase under the HUGE word fortification. Both the 3+ fortification rule, and the 4+ defense line rule come from parts of the book OTHER than the listing for the ADL.

It's listed as a Fortification because it can be purchased in that FOC slot. The rules for the ADL terrain type are very clearly spelled out on page 104. I have no idea how you're thinking that an ADL get you a 3+ cover save when the rules for the Aegis Defense Line, Defense Lines, and Barricades and Walls are very clear.

 grendel083 wrote:

Looking further into the rules there are infact two types of Fortification.
One is a terrain type.
One is item purchased for your army and uses up the "Fortification slot". These have a terrain type listed in their entry.

A ADL not listed as using the terrain type "Fortifiaction", it is listed as "Defence line". "Purpose Built Fortification" or indeed the generic "Fortifcation" simply do not apply to the already defined ADL.

So if an ADL isn't a Fortification, when do I deploy it on the field?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:


This is a straw man. None of that is listed anywhere near the rules for fortifications in the FoC, or the 3+ cover saves. That information was solely provided to show the context in which the writers defined a difference between a fortification and terrain not purchased with your army.

And to your first comment, if pointing out that people who are responding obviously didn't read the entire post and comprehend it is an insult, then maybe they should read the post and save themself the face. It was glaringly obvious that several people didn't read my entire post. Perhaps that's my fault for performing the due diligence of looking up all the pertinent information first, and posting a WoT. But then I didn't force them to post in a thread that they didn't fully read the topic on either.

The person you quoted even edited his post to point out that his original response was in error, having not understood. Either way, I'm not going to defend myself further on this point. If you obviously didn't understand a post, or didn't read it, I'm gonna call you on it.

Where's the straw man?

I don't think I've misrepresented your opinion at all.

Psst: it's this one. I noticed you forgot to quote it.

Are you trying to say that a unit that takes up no slot (and some do) are taken for free as well?
Edit:

Found one. But I was being facetious, that's not a problem for you, is it?

It's this one:

Are you trying to say that a unit that takes up no slot (and some do) are taken for free as well?

If you're going to tell me I'm constructing straw men, you should certainly point out the straw man.

 grendel083 wrote:

A ADL not listed as using the terrain type "Fortifiaction", it is listed as "Defence line".
"Purpose Built Fortification" or indeed the generic "Fortifcation" simply do not apply to the already defined ADL.

1. That's because there's no such thing as terrain type "Fortification".
2. The FoC section defines anything you purchase in the fortification slot as a "Purpose-built fortification."
3. The cover section clearly states, "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save."

Edit: found it

Although I certainly believe that this is a frill; I don't think that term is more meant to refer to things built for defending territory. (Which would include ADL, yes, but they're reclassified as "Defense lines")

Betray - your error was not in the quote, but the random "conclusion" you made up at the end which you claimed was attributed to me

An ADL provides a 4+ cover save, because that is wha tthe rules for it state. A bastion provides a 3+ cover save, because that is what the rules state

Anything else is your failure to comprehend a fairly straightforward set of rules, which you are now angrily defending with insilts and passive aggressiveness.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

A bastion provides a 3+ cover save, because that is what the rules state

I'm not trying to contradict you, or to come to blows, but I'm having a bit of trouble finding the words that say this. Can one of you give me a page number please?

Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Looking further into the rules there are infact two types of Fortification.
One is a terrain type.
One is item purchased for your army and uses up the "Fortification slot". These have a terrain type listed in their entry.

A ADL not listed as using the terrain type "Fortifiaction", it is listed as "Defence line". "Purpose Built Fortification" or indeed the generic "Fortifcation" simply do not apply to the already defined ADL.

So if an ADL isn't a Fortification, when do I deploy it on the field?

Didn't read what I wrote, did you?
You'll notice i said a ADL was a fortification. I said there are two types of Fortifcation defined in the BRB.

Now to drive this point further home:
Fortications (the purchased kind, not the Terrain Type) are NOT of the Terrain Type "Fortication" unless their datasheet says they are.

Fortifcations Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: This tells you what part of the terrainr rules you'll need to refer to when using your Fortication.

Aegis Defence Line Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines)

The AGL does not use the Terrain Type: Fortification.
It is however a Fortification (as in uses up a Fortification slot, not as in Terrian Type. These are two very different things).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

1. That's because there's no such thing as terrain type "Fortification".

Wrong. You pointed it out in your first post. It's on page 18 in the cover chart.

Send your case to be FAQ'd if you think you have a good case.

 grendel083 wrote:

Fortifcations Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your Fortification.

Aegis Defence Line Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines)

This is actually definitive.

@Grendell: Show me a single piece of terrain that is classified as terrain type: Fortification. It doesn't exist. What you quoted is the description of what fortifications show for terrain type. All fortifications have a terrain type listed, and none of them say "Fortification."

@nos: The only place you could draw the conclusion that it would give a 3+ save while obscured behind the bastion is from where it defines fortifications as being the objects that you purchase for your FoC, that ALL count as purpose-built fortifications. And if we're utilizing that rule, then it would apply to the ADL as well. That's my entire point. Fortifications are thicker, sturdier versions of the buildings and battlefield debris than standard generic terrain. I apologize nos if I came across as rude earlier. It was not my intent. Just frustrating getting bombarded with comments and questions that I feel were answered in my very first post.

 Archonate wrote:
Send your case to be FAQ'd if you think you have a good case.

Already did. Thanks for the tip though.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Fortifcations Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your Fortification.

Aegis Defence Line Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines)

This is actually definitive.

Not when something else says an ADL purchased as part of your FoC is a purpose-built fortification, and purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. That's far from definative. That's downright contradictory. Both of them are definitive if you choose to ignore the other one.

 grendel083 wrote:

Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Looking further into the rules there are infact two types of Fortification.
One is a terrain type.
One is item purchased for your army and uses up the "Fortification slot". These have a terrain type listed in their entry.

A ADL not listed as using the terrain type "Fortifiaction", it is listed as "Defence line". "Purpose Built Fortification" or indeed the generic "Fortifcation" simply do not apply to the already defined ADL.

So if an ADL isn't a Fortification, when do I deploy it on the field?

Didn't read what I wrote, did you?
You'll notice i said a ADL was a fortification. I said there are two types of Fortifcation defined in the BRB.

Now to drive this point further home:
Fortications (the purchased kind, not the Terrain Type) are NOT of the Terrain Type "Fortication" unless their datasheet says they are.

Fortifcations Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: This tells you what part of the terrainr rules you'll need to refer to when using your Fortication.

Aegis Defence Line Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines)

The AGL does not use the Terrain Type: Fortification.
It is however a Fortification (as in uses up a Fortification slot, not as in Terrian Type. These are two very different things).

So why am I paying 50 points for an item that fills a FoC slot and doesn't provide me with anything more then if I just plopped down some broken walls in front of my deployment zone during terrain placing?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
@Grendell: Show me a single piece of terrain that is classified as terrain type: Fortification. It doesn't exist. What you quoted is the description of what fortifications show for terrain type. All fortifications have a terrain type listed, and none of them say "Fortification."

Exactly.
No purchased fortification uses the Fortification terrian type.

Now if you placed a piece of terrain during table set-up, and when going through terrain with your opponent at the start of the game you both agree it counts as a Fortication, well there you go. Most terrain isn't defined, it's up to you and your oponent to match it to the appropriate rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Miri wrote:
So why am I paying 50 points for an item that fills a FoC slot and doesn't provide me with anything more then if I just plopped down some broken walls in front of my deployment zone during terrain placing?

Because you place it where it will be usefull. And attach weapons to it like a quad gun.
You can use the wall infront of your deployment zone, or your opponent might win the roll-off and deploy behind it instead.

 grendel083 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
@Grendell: Show me a single piece of terrain that is classified as terrain type: Fortification. It doesn't exist. What you quoted is the description of what fortifications show for terrain type. All fortifications have a terrain type listed, and none of them say "Fortification."

Exactly.
No purchased fortification uses the Fortification terrian type.

Now if you placed a piece of terrain during table set-up, and when going through terrain with your opponent at the start of the game you both agree it counts as a Fortication, well there you go. Most terrain isn't defined, it's up to you and your oponent to match it to the appropriate rules.

lol, no dude. Read under the FoC. If you purchase something as a fortification, it is a purpose-built fortification. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. You're making up terrain types that don't exist.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
lol, no dude. Read under the FoC. If you purchase something as a fortification, it is a purpose-built fortification. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. You're making up terrain types that don't exist.

There are non so blind as those that will not see.

I've quoted you the rules and shown the page numbers.
Purchased Fortifications have the terrain type listed in their Datasheet. Page 114. Non of them have "Purpose Buit Fortication" listed. So ther's no reason to use it.

No, Betray. The rules that are specifically about the ADL are thus:

page 114, Terrain type: wrote:
this tells you what terrain pieces the fortification consists of

page 114, Terrain type (ADL) wrote:
Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines)

The terrain is a Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) and thus uses those rules. I do not understand how you can still be arguing this. Are you just sticking to your pride, or something?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

lol, no dude. Read under the FoC. If you purchase something as a fortification, it is a purpose-built fortification. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. You're making up terrain types that don't exist.

Lol, no dude.

Read the Fortification rules.

Read them until you realise how wrong this pointless argument is.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

BRB, under fortifications states, If you purchase something as a fortification, it is a purpose-built fortification. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save.

The fortification is a fortification and thus uses those rules. I do not understand how you can still be arguing this. Are you just sticking to your pride, or something?

See, I can make those circular arguments while ignoring the other listings too.

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.

This is cut and dry. The aegis rules tell you it's specific type is Battlefield debris (defense line)

Your own post provided me with the rules for defense lines. It tells you to follow the rules for barricades and walls with an exception that you get +2 cover for going to ground.

Uncover your ears and stop yelling "lalalala" long enough to READ the rules you posted. They are quite clear.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

BRB, under fortifications states, If you purchase something as a fortification, it is a purpose-built fortification. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save.

The fortification is a fortification and thus uses those rules. I do not understand how you can still be arguing this. Are you just sticking to your pride, or something?

See, I can make those circular arguments while ignoring the other listings too.

You failed to quote me sir.

Please, stop poorly using terms for logical fallacies. I'm yet to see you use one correctly.

Let's set this up as a formal argument.

A
B
If A then B
If B then C
.:. C

Nice formal structure, huh?

a. A fortification makes use of the rules described in its "Terrain Type" rules, completely and utterly (the rules explicitly state this when describing the fortification entries)
b. An ADL uses the Terrain Type "Battlefield Debris: Defence Line"
If A, then B.
A, therefore B
If B, then C.
B, therefore C.
C, Conclusion
ADLs have a 4+ cover save

I'm not the one adding a random, unsupported assertion D (that they only use that terrain type for the purposes of movement) to hide the unsoundness of my argument.

There is nothing cyclical about that argument. It is perfectly valid and completely sound.

PS:
Please, stop trying to bluster your way around definitive rules points here. RAW, ADLs make use of Defence Lines.
I don't care for your HYWPI argument.

Edit further:

rather than telling us we've misread you or that we've failed to read you, repost your point Maybe if it's singled out, we'll understand what you're telling us that we're missing more effectively.

Step 1: What are we talking about?
Aegis Defence Line
Step 2: What type is it?
*Flips to page 114*
It's Battlefield Debris with subtype 'Defence Line'
Step 3: What does that give?
*flips to page 105*
Defence Line has the same rules as barricades and walls, except for the additional Go to Ground.
Barricades and Walls give a 4+ cover save.

It's a specific rule about the ADL and that beats every general fortification-rule that you can find in the book.

Kangodo wrote:

It's a specific rule about the ADL and that beats every general fortification-rule that you can find in the book.

We all keep saying this. It completely contradicts him and he's just refusing to accept that it's the case.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

It's a specific rule about the ADL and that beats every general fortification-rule that you can find in the book.

We all keep saying this. It completely contradicts him and he's just refusing to accept that it's the case.

We've even proved that there's a difference between purchased Fortications and the Terrain Type: Fortification.
With rules no less!

Kangodo wrote:
Step 1: What are we talking about?
Aegis Defence Line
Step 2: What type is it?
*Flips to page 114*
It's Battlefield Debris with subtype 'Defence Line'
Step 3: What does that give?
*flips to page 105*
Defence Line has the same rules as barricades and walls, except for the additional Go to Ground.
Barricades and Walls give a 4+ cover save.

It's a specific rule about the ADL and that beats every general fortification-rule that you can find in the book.

So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

 grendel083 wrote:

We've even proved that there's a difference between purchased Fortications and the Terrain Type: Fortification.
With rules no less!

On a completely unrelated note, That's quite possibly the best Flag I've ever seen. I wish Australias flag was 3 armoured legs in a star.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Miri wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Step 1: What are we talking about?
Aegis Defence Line
Step 2: What type is it?
*Flips to page 114*
It's Battlefield Debris with subtype 'Defence Line'
Step 3: What does that give?
*flips to page 105*
Defence Line has the same rules as barricades and walls, except for the additional Go to Ground.
Barricades and Walls give a 4+ cover save.

It's a specific rule about the ADL and that beats every general fortification-rule that you can find in the book.

So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

You're paying +50 points for the gun, mind.

Interestingly enough, by the word of the rules Gun Emplacements on the field (not bought) are actually not dilapidated, as there's no mention in their rules section.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
On a completely unrelated note, That's quite possibly the best Flag I've ever seen. I wish Australias flag was 3 armoured legs in a star.

Thanks. I'm quite fond of our national symbol, bit different to the rest.

Miri wrote:
So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

You place it where it's needed, you buy guns and other bits for it.
Also a piece of terrain can easily benifit your opponent instead.

Miri wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Step 1: What are we talking about?
Aegis Defence Line
Step 2: What type is it?
*Flips to page 114*
It's Battlefield Debris with subtype 'Defence Line'
Step 3: What does that give?
*flips to page 105*
Defence Line has the same rules as barricades and walls, except for the additional Go to Ground.
Barricades and Walls give a 4+ cover save.

It's a specific rule about the ADL and that beats every general fortification-rule that you can find in the book.

So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

Your paying 50pts for a long chain of defense lines that offers +2 cover if going to ground instead of +1 with the option to also take a gun emplacement.

I didn't know that with nothing more than good terrain placement I could end up with a icarus lascannon lol

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

I quoted you exactly, only numbering your points for my responses. I find it convenient that no one can point out the answer to your question about what cover save a bastion gives without defaulting to my "failed logic", or something else that has no basis in the rules.

To answer the question for you, it would give a 3+ cover save, just like every other fortification. That is, unless it was placed on the board as a generic piece of battlefield terrain, in which case it would grant a 4+ save, like other dilapidated ruins/buildings.

This is absolutely wrong seeing as how vehicles/MCs do not take cover in same manner as infantry models do. To gain any type of a save for a vehicle/MC it must be visibly obscurred; 01% to 25% grants a 5+, 26% to 50% grants a 4+, and more than 50% grants a 3+. What ever is used to block LOS is irrelevant. Additional modifiers such as Stealth and Shrouded stack as normal.

 grendel083 wrote:
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.

Then lucky for me the rules for ADL DON'T say that. The ADL lists it's terrain type. The rule for that terrain type is listed elsewhere, talking about generic terrain. The ADL also says it's a fortification, as it's specifically listed for purchase under the HUGE word fortification. Both the 3+ fortification rule, and the 4+ defense line rule come from parts of the book OTHER than the listing for the ADL.

So in other words, because you would need to referrence other areas of the book to apply rules that are not to your advantage you just ignore them?

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Interestingly enough, by the word of the rules Gun Emplacements on the field (not bought) are actually not dilapidated, as there's no mention in their rules section.

You're right. First to get there shoots it!

Miri wrote:
So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

You are paying 50 points for dibs on it, the ability to shoot the emplaced weapons and for buildings you'll have two additional AV.

I'd love to see the day were people try to be cheesy and include it as neutral terrain, just to have the enemy outroll them and get their trick played against them.

If you want 3+ cover save fortifications, Skyshield Landing Pads are available.

Kangodo wrote:

Miri wrote:
So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

You are paying 50 points for dibs on it, the ability to shoot the emplaced weapons and for buildings you'll have two additional AV.

I'd love to see the day were people try to be cheesy and include it as neutral terrain, just to have the enemy outroll them and get their trick played against them.

Just one problem with that. You roll Table Halves and pick which side you want. Then you handle fortifications and terrain. So ubless you are somehow deploying in my deployment zone before I get to put any models down.. my bettlefield debris defense line and battlefield debris gun emplacement are going to be on my side of the field and manned by my people.

Look, Betray, do whatever you want to.

The point is you're getting a HUGE amount of conflict on an internet website.

Imagine how much contest you'll get from players in tournaments.

Submit the question for FAQ, that's the best you can hope for.

Miri wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Miri wrote:
So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

You are paying 50 points for dibs on it, the ability to shoot the emplaced weapons and for buildings you'll have two additional AV.

I'd love to see the day were people try to be cheesy and include it as neutral terrain, just to have the enemy outroll them and get their trick played against them.

Just one problem with that. You roll Table Halves and pick which side you want. Then you handle fortifications and terrain. So ubless you are somehow deploying in my deployment zone before I get to put any models down.. my bettlefield debris defense line and battlefield debris gun emplacement are going to be on my side of the field and manned by my people.

That's only if you're using "Alternating Terrain" to set up instead of "Narrative Terrain"
And even then, if your opponent won the roll to pick sides they could simply place your wall first in their side first.

Miri wrote:
Just one problem with that. You roll Table Halves and pick which side you want. Then you handle fortifications and terrain. So ubless you are somehow deploying in my deployment zone before I get to put any models down.. my bettlefield debris defense line and battlefield debris gun emplacement are going to be on my side of the field and manned by my people.

No, that's not how it works.
If you bring an ADL to the game with the intention of using it as terrain and I win the roll-off, then I am taking "your" ADL and put it on my half.

I know this argument is about the rules, but to add a little common sense here:

Fortification that one might find on a battlefield:

This photo of Bayeux is courtesy of TripAdvisor" border="0" />

And this is what the argument is about:


Can you really say that the cover save for these two things are the same?

WWII fortifications and those in a science fiction tabletop game, which has its own ruleset, have absolutely nothing to do with each other... Your attempted comparison is meaningless. I would love and hope that the ADL remains a 4+ because nearly all of my opponents use them (and I don't because I prefer highly mobile, non-static armies)... But I can see Betray's point. I need to check my BRB at home and compare what he's said and what the rules say for myself...

Beast wrote:
WWII fortifications and those in a science fiction tabletop game, which has its own ruleset, have absolutely nothing to do with each other... Your attempted comparison is meaningless. I would love and hope that the ADL remains a 4+ because nearly all of my opponents use them (and I don't because I prefer highly mobile, non-static armies)... But I can see Betray's point. I need to check my BRB at home and compare what he's said and what the rules say for myself...

I'm afraid his point has been completly disproven beyond a shadow of doubt.

Fortifcations Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your Fortication.

Aegis Defence Line Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines)

My point is that a "fortification" that would receive a 3+ cover would be like the top picture.

I believe the crux of this argument is in GWs multiple use of the word "fortification". The BRB refers to "fortifications" as a group of items that can be selected as part of ones FOC. And then they use the word "fortification" to describe a fortified structure. I can see where this would be confusing for those that are new to the game, but those that are arguing they are the same are just lawyering the rules for their own benefit.

Moridan wrote:
My point is that a "fortification" that would receive a 3+ cover would be like the top picture.

I believe the crux of this argument is in GWs multiple use of the word "fortification". The BRB refers to "fortifications" as a group of items that can be selected as part of ones FOC. And then they use the word "fortification" to describe a fortified structure. I can see where this would be confusing for those that are new to the game, but those that are arguing they are the same are just lawyering the rules for their own benefit.

That's not even a problem as in one instance they're using the term "fortification" as a general cover-all term but in the rules specific to the ADL that all-purpose generalization is overridden.

I think people are just confused because it's a overwrite that is going to a worse conclusion rather than a better one (4+ general save instead of 3+).

Moridan wrote:My point is that a "fortification" that would receive a 3+ cover would be like the top picture.

The top picture wouldn't provide a cover save to those inside, based on the rules in 40k. They'd be embarked within it, which doesn't provide a cover save.

Scipio Africanus wrote:by the word of the rules Gun Emplacements on the field (not bought) are actually not dilapidated, as there's no mention in their rules section.

Actually, it is. It specifically spells out that gun emplacements placed in this manner are non-functional. Not going to bother digging up the pg number for you, since you won't read it anyway, and will keep speaking in goblin. I honestly can't figure out if I'm being trolled, or if a couple people aren't native english speakers, or what is causing this massive breakdown of communication.

In any case, if someone responds with something intelligible, I'll be happy to continue intelligent discourse, but I'm done responding to whatever it is grendel and scipio are throwing at me.

 grendel083 wrote:

Beast wrote:
WWII fortifications and those in a science fiction tabletop game, which has its own ruleset, have absolutely nothing to do with each other... Your attempted comparison is meaningless. I would love and hope that the ADL remains a 4+ because nearly all of my opponents use them (and I don't because I prefer highly mobile, non-static armies)... But I can see Betray's point. I need to check my BRB at home and compare what he's said and what the rules say for myself...

I'm afraid his point has been completly disproven beyond a shadow of doubt.

Wow I didn't know youl spoke for everyone here on Dakka and that whatever you perceive to be correct is what everone else has to believe... You belong in the White House my friend... I think I'll make my own determination based on RAW once I can get to it at home. If his assertions make sense and are logical and provable, then I'll go with that. If yours meet those conditions, I'll go with yours... Cheers.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Scipio Africanus wrote:by the word of the rules Gun Emplacements on the field (not bought) are actually not dilapidated, as there's no mention in their rules section.

Actually, it is. It specifically spells out that gun emplacements placed in this manner are non-functional. Not going to bother digging up the pg number for you, since you won't read it anyway.

Common mistake here. Dilapidated emplaced weapons do not function. However Gun Emplacements do not suffer Dilapidation.

Beast wrote:
Wow I didn't know youl spoke for everyone here on Dakka and that whatever you perceive to be correct is what everone else has to believe... You belong in the White House my friend... I think I'll make my own determination based on RAW once I can get to it at home. If his assertions make sense and are logical and provable, then I'll go with that. If yours meet those conditions, I'll go with yours... Cheers.

By all means. My rule quotes included page numbers to help you find them more quickly.
I don't think they let non-Americans run the White house though sadly, but thatnks for the support!

 grendel083 wrote:

By all means. My rule quotes included page numbers to help you find them more quickly.
I don't think they let non-Americans run the White house though sadly, but thatnks for the support!

Cool, I'll check your page #s - appreciate it.

non-Americans running the White House?... Heh... I think I'll just leave that one completely alone...

Yeah, I was gonna make a comment about Obama but...

Of course I'd totally have to re-paint the outside.
How does Red House sound?

 grendel083 wrote:
Of course I'd totally have to re-paint the outside.
How does Red House sound?

That sounds appropriate

Betray - you appea to be now entirely ignoring rule #1

Your argument has been disproven by showing you what specifc rules apply to the ADL. You are simply ignoring those contradicting you, as you seem to believe you have spotted something noone else has.

You havent

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - you appea to be now entirely ignoring rule #1

Your argument has been disproven by showing you what specifc rules apply to the ADL. You are simply ignoring those contradicting you, as you seem to believe you have spotted something noone else has.

You havent

Me not responding to 2 people who can't construct a proper sentence doesn't disprove anything. If you post solid proof of something, backing it up with page numbers and quotes several times, and my response every time is inevitably some version of "nuh uh!", with no new evidence or explanation of why your proof is invalid, you would eventually quit responding to me as I have to them.

And for the record, the majority of the arguments against me have been: "Your argument has been disproven". Saying something has been disproven doesn't make it so, although to someone skimming through the thread, it may certainly appear that way.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Scipio Africanus wrote:by the word of the rules Gun Emplacements on the field (not bought) are actually not dilapidated, as there's no mention in their rules section.

Actually, it is. It specifically spells out that gun emplacements placed in this manner are non-functional. Not going to bother digging up the pg number for you, since you won't read it anyway, and will keep speaking in goblin. I honestly can't figure out if I'm being trolled, or if a couple people aren't native english speakers, or what is causing this massive breakdown of communication.

In any case, if someone responds with something intelligible, I'll be happy to continue intelligent discourse, but I'm done responding to whatever it is grendel and scipio are throwing at me.

Wow. That's just so Childish.

We've already proven that ADL don't use the dilapidation rules in buildings. I'm a native english speaker. I'm from australia. If you're failing to comprehend my language, then that's your business.

Saying "throwing at me", when we're bringing perfectly valid points to the table that are completely within the bounds of the rulebook, and quote exactly what the rulebook says (you do read the rulebook when you act like this, right? you actually read the rules sections that you're acting like we're lying about?) and exactly what the rule is intended to cause.

I know exactly what you're doing. You know you've been beaten and you're backing out. But rather than step up like a man and admit you are wrong, you're acting like a child. You're insulting me, because you've run out of material. Now I've seen a number of irritating mistakes in your language. I've seen you pretend to understand logical fallacy, but the fact is you don't and you're just too proud to admit you're wrong. I maintain that I've been completely polite to you, I've posed questions (which, I might add have gone unanswered) and that rather than "continue intelligent discourse", you call me a goblin. How is this "Intelligent discourse"? Oh, and on this rules forum you dig up your page numbers, because otherwise there's no point in putting an opinion forward. An assertion is worth nothing when there are actual answers to your questions.

Feel the urge to get angry and continue to post, even though you know you're wrong? We'll be here. And we'll take your abuse, because we love you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:


Me this is bad form. You don't usually start a sentence with a personal pronoun, unless it's 'I'. not responding to 2 tsk tsk... you shouldn't use digits in communication, it's uncomfortable to read. people who can't construct a proper sentence doesn't I'm not even going to comment on how you let this happen disprove anything. If you post solid proof of something, backing it up with page numbers and quotes several times, is this an admission? it sounds like an admission. and my response every time is inevitably some version of "nuh uh!", then you're being childish and refusing to argue. View this. with no new evidence or explanation of why your proof is invalid, Your proof is invalid. We've proven that your proof is invalid. Are you intentionally being a hypocrite? you would eventually quit responding to me as I have to them.you've stopped responding to us because you know you're beat.

You don't need new evidence when your old evidence is definitive.

There needs to be another button on the bottom right: Friend, Ignore, TROLL.

I think I know what Betray is trying to say but I don't have my BRB to help clarify his point (or even to check to see if it is a valid point). I THINK he is trying to say that, yes, the ADL is a Battlefield Debris(Defense Line) but it is also a Purpose Built Fortification that you can buy for your army. And he is saying that ALL Purpose Built Fortifications confer a 3+ save despite what their generic type is (and what save that generic type would normally confer). Further that they give the generic type for ADLs so that you will know what other rules to follow aside from the exception to the cover save change.

This is just what I think his point is (sorry if I've mis-stated anything Betray) and like I've said before, I don't have my BRB here so I obviously can't check for myself if this is a valid reading of RAW.

If you guys aren't completely tired of this thread, do you mind running that thought process to ground with counters because that is the thought process I was taking (blindly without my BRB though)... Thanks

Edit spelling

Beast wrote:
I think I know what Betray is trying to say but I don't have my BRB to help clarify his point (or even to check to see if it is a valid point). I THINK he is trying to say that, yes, the ADL is a Battlefield Debris(Defense Line) but it is also a Purpose Built Fortification that you can buy for your army. And he is saying that ALL Purpose Built Fortifications confer a 3+ save despite what their generic type is (and what save that generic type would normally confer). Further that they give the generic type for ADLs so that you will know what other rules to follow aside from the exception to the cover save change.

This is just what I think his point is (sorry if I've mis-stated anything Betray) and like I've said before, I don't have my BRB here so I obviously can't check for myself if this is a valid reading of RAW.

If you guys aren't completely tired of this thread, do you mind running that thought process to ground with counters because that is the thought process I was taking (blindly without my BRB though)... Thanks

Edit spelling

That pretty much sums it up. It clearly states both, in different sections of the book, neither of which are the section listing the stats and point cost of the ADL. The only logical way I could read it, would be that a non-FoC defense line is a 4+, and the FoC defense line is a 3+. I listed all the page numbers for all the relevant rules, including the ones that "don't" support my argument in the quote on the first page, so people can review them and decide for themselves. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts once you get a chance to check your BRB.

As a side note, I really don't have a vested interest in the ADL. I play an army where the ADL is generally a waste of points either way, because my army is all about mobility(DE). Not camping an ADL. But I just find it highly unusual that so many people on the internet are following the 4+ rule, when it doesn't make a whole lot of sense after reading all of the rules. At least to me.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
And for the record, the majority of the arguments against me have been: "Your argument has been disproven". Saying something has been disproven doesn't make it so, although to someone skimming through the thread, it may certainly appear that way.

Well I'll post the counter agument as rules again for you to look through and consider.

I propose that there are 2 definitions of "Fortication" defined in the BRB.

Fortification(1): First Fortification is a terrain type (or 'Cover Type' if you prefer: The cover granted by a piece of terrain). This is found on the Cover Chart of Page 18.

Fortification(2): The second is a piece of terrain purchased for your army and taking up the "Fortification" slot found on the FoC (page 114). All of these have their own datasheet.

These I believe are totally different things. The following rules quotes will show why:
Under the rules for Fortifications we have a section called Terrain Type.

Fortifcations Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your Fortication. This can be anything from a line of barricades to a large building

So we know Fortifications have a Terrain Type.

Fortification(1) is a terrain type, while Fortification(2) requires a terrain type.

We now look to the Aegis Defence Line Datasheet:

Aegis Defence Line Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines)

This tells us that the Terrain Type is Defence Line, and not Fortification(1).

What we have here is an unhappy naming coincidence. Where 2 different things have been given the same name. Fortuatly the Datasheet for the AGL makes it clear which Terrain Type we need to use.

Feel free to post any counter arguements to the above, along with page numbers please.

Having only skimmed the rules quoted, that looks like ADL should be a 3+ save to me. But I do want to spend some time looking closer at my BRB.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Having only skimmed the rules quoted, that looks like ADL should be a 3+ save to me. But I do want to spend some time looking closer at my BRB.

Having only skimmed your post, it looks like you just said the ADL should be a 4+ save. But I do want to spend more time looking closer at posts.

Right so if the ADL is terrain type: defense line (which would normally confer a 4+ cover) and the Purpose Built Fortifications (which the ADL is listed under) all confer a 3+ cover save, it sounds to me that the ADL is a more specific type of defense line than the generic and that the 3+ would apply... (?) Thoughts?

Edit- Jeez I hope this isn't the case... facing a 4+ ADL every game is bad enough. A 3+ would be hateful...

Beast wrote:
Right so if the ADL is terrain type: defense line (which would normally confer a 4+ cover) and the Purpose Built Fortifications (which the ADL is listed under) all confer a 3+ cover save, it sounds to me that the ADL is a more specific type of defense line than the generic and that the 3+ would apply... (?) Thoughts?

This is pretty much the way I read it. Either way, headed off to bed. Will let you know if GW emails me back to clear this all up for us. ROFL

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Will let you know if GW emails me back to clear this all up for us. ROFL

An e-mail from GW and a quarter will get you about 25 cents.

Beast wrote:
Right so if the ADL is terrain type: defense line (which would normally confer a 4+ cover) and the Purpose Built Fortifications (which the ADL is listed under) all confer a 3+ cover save, it sounds to me that the ADL is a more specific type of defense line than the generic and that the 3+ would apply... (?) Thoughts?

Where is ADL listed under Purpose Built Fortications? The only time "Purpose Built" is mentioned is under Types of Cover Saves on page 18 (unless I'm missing something). The "Purpose-built" seems to be fluff text rather than a type, as is their "Bloodthorn Hedge" rather than "Hedge"

Miri wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Step 1: What are we talking about?
Aegis Defence Line
Step 2: What type is it?
*Flips to page 114*
It's Battlefield Debris with subtype 'Defence Line'
Step 3: What does that give?
*flips to page 105*
Defence Line has the same rules as barricades and walls, except for the additional Go to Ground.
Barricades and Walls give a 4+ cover save.

It's a specific rule about the ADL and that beats every general fortification-rule that you can find in the book.

So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

If your store provides aegis def lines for terrain, sure. However, if you are just placing a barricade or a wall, you won't get the +2 cover save for going to ground like you would with an aegis def line.

And the aegis def line allows you to purchase a quad gun that you don't have access to.

 grendel083 wrote:

Where is ADL listed under Purpose Built Fortications? The only time "Purpose Built" is mentioned is under Types of Cover Saves on page 18 (unless I'm missing something).

"Purpose-built" is also used on p109, the first sentence under "Fortification" in the bottom right.

What if the ADL is both things at once? It couldconfer two cover saves at the same time—one from being a Purpose-Built Fortification (3+), and one from being a Barricades and Walls (4+).
This is a possible scenario in other situations. For example, if a Dakka Jet evades and then turbo-boosts, it will have a 4+ cover save. If it ends its move in range of a KFF, it will have a 5+ cover save. The Jet now has both a 4+ and a 5+ cover save at the same time. It will, of course, use the better save.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Where is ADL listed under Purpose Built Fortications? The only time "Purpose Built" is mentioned is under Types of Cover Saves on page 18 (unless I'm missing something).

"Purpose-built" is also used on p109, the first sentence under "Fortification" in the bottom right.

What if the ADL is both things at once? It couldconfer two cover saves at the same time—one from being a Purpose-Built Fortification (3+), and one from being a Barricades and Walls (4+).
This is a possible scenario in other situations. For example, if a Dakka Jet evades and then turbo-boosts, it will have a 4+ cover save. If it ends its move in range of a KFF, it will have a 5+ cover save. The Jet now has both a 4+ and a 5+ cover save at the same time. It will, of course, use the better save.

That is true of the dakkajet.

But in the situation with the ADL, the Defense lines cover save (4+) text is more specific than the blanket fortification cover save (3+) text. Therefore the ADL has a 4+ cover save and not that of a general fortification.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Where is ADL listed under Purpose Built Fortications? The only time "Purpose Built" is mentioned is under Types of Cover Saves on page 18 (unless I'm missing something).

"Purpose-built" is also used on p109, the first sentence under "Fortification" in the bottom right.

Ah yes, but that is Purpose-built battlefield defences. Purpose-built Fortifications is only on Page 18 and soes not list the ADL under it.

What if the ADL is both things at once? It couldconfer two cover saves at the same time—one from being a Purpose-Built Fortification (3+), and one from being a Barricades and Walls (4+).

While possible, there is no rule telling us to class it as a Purpose-built Fortification. The Datasheet states Defence Line, so why apply something else as well?

 grendel083 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Where is ADL listed under Purpose Built Fortications? The only time "Purpose Built" is mentioned is under Types of Cover Saves on page 18 (unless I'm missing something).

"Purpose-built" is also used on p109, the first sentence under "Fortification" in the bottom right.

Ah yes, but that is Purpose-built battlefield defences. Purpose-built Fortifications is only on Page 18 and soes not list the ADL under it.

I don't see anything about purpose built fortifications on pg 18 at all. Just fortifications.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmmm....

What exactly is a fortification?

 imweasel wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Where is ADL listed under Purpose Built Fortications? The only time "Purpose Built" is mentioned is under Types of Cover Saves on page 18 (unless I'm missing something).

"Purpose-built" is also used on p109, the first sentence under "Fortification" in the bottom right.

Ah yes, but that is Purpose-built battlefield defences. Purpose-built Fortifications is only on Page 18 and soes not list the ADL under it.

I don't see anything about purpose built fortifications on pg 18 at all. Just fortifications.

That's sort of the point, it was stated that the ADL was listed under "Purpose-built Fortifiications".
It is mentioned on page 18, in the rule named "Types of Cover Saves" in the first paragraph, but it definatly doesn't list anything as this type.
I think some miss-quoting of "Purpose-buit Fortifications" has caused some of the confusion in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 imweasel wrote:
I don't think an ADL is even a fortification. How about that?

Fortifcation as in the cover? No it isn't, it's a defence line.

I don't see anything about purpose built fortifications, I see reference to purpose built battlefield defences on page 109. Not purpose built fortifications.

 imweasel wrote:
I don't see anything about purpose built fortifications, I see reference to purpose built battlefield defences on page 109. Not purpose built fortifications.

That is because "Purpose-built fortifications" is on page 18, last sentence under Types of Cover Save.

 Happyjew wrote:

 imweasel wrote:
I don't see anything about purpose built fortifications, I see reference to purpose built battlefield defences on page 109. Not purpose built fortifications.

That is because "Purpose-built fortifications" is on page 18, last sentence under Types of Cover Save.

It is. But the ADL is not listed as being that. Nothing is.
I suspect the "Purpose-built" part is mearly fluff.

Agree grendel. This is interesting...

I can see both sides of this. I guess the discussion should be 'is the adl a fortification?'

'if it is, does the terrain type override fortification? Or is it vice versa?'

 imweasel wrote:
Agree grendel. This is interesting...

I can see both sides of this. I guess the discussion should be 'is the adl a fortification?'

'if it is, does the terrain type override fortification? Or is it vice versa?'

Well my point earlier on was the book seems to define two types of "Fortification" one being a terrain type found on P18, the other is purchased sort that goes in the FoC P114 (these require a terrain type).

Guys, I'm pretty sure ADL gives 5+ cover save, but you have to roll on a special 7 sided die for this.

Super Newb wrote:
Guys, I'm pretty sure ADL gives 5+ cover save, but you have to roll on a special 7 sided die for this.

I think we can all just ignore this post. This is a rules debate please do not post random jokes and garbage alike so we can keep our threads serious

 A GumyBear wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Guys, I'm pretty sure ADL gives 5+ cover save, but you have to roll on a special 7 sided die for this.

I think we can all just ignore this post.

Probably, but it still made me chuckle.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 imweasel wrote:
I don't see anything about purpose built fortifications, I see reference to purpose built battlefield defences on page 109. Not purpose built fortifications.

That is because "Purpose-built fortifications" is on page 18, last sentence under Types of Cover Save.

It is. But the ADL is not listed as being that. Nothing is.
I suspect the "Purpose-built" part is mearly fluff.

Nothing is defined as Purpose Built Fortification anywhere, but there are rules for it? Seems like the OP may have a point there then?

So p109 (Fortifications) specifically refers you to p114 for a selection of purpose built fortifications... p114 Describes the entries for these fortifications (points value, composition, terrain type, Acces & fire points, weapons, options, weapons profiles). Immediately after that begins the actual fortifications you may choose to buy for your army, ADL being the first, followed by Skyshield on the next page and then Bastion and Fortress of Redemption after that. This is what I meant by ADLs being listed as purpose built fortifications Grendel. And since all of those choices are listed under this section "Fortifications" on p 114, ADL is therefore a type of purpose built fortification... The ADL description itself even refers to it as a fortifiication... "Aegis Defense Lines are ideally suited for commanders wishing to gain a foothold in enemy territory or establish perimeters until such time when larger, more permanent fortifications can be constructed. '" The "larger more permanent fortifications" part of that is a comparative that defines ADLs as a smaller, less permanent fortification, but a fortification none-the-less... And fortifications confer a 3+ cover save... So I think Betray may indeed have found something the rest of us didn't catch onto...

Edit spelling.

 A GumyBear wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Guys, I'm pretty sure ADL gives 5+ cover save, but you have to roll on a special 7 sided die for this.

I think we can all just ignore this post. This is a rules debate please do not post random jokes and garbage alike so we can keep our threads serious

Oh boy, excuuuuuuse me! I didn't realize all the other posts in this thread were classified as 'non-garbage' LOL


Still, I am glad you realized I was joking and informed everyone of the fact in case they thought I was serious.

Super Newb wrote:

 A GumyBear wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Guys, I'm pretty sure ADL gives 5+ cover save, but you have to roll on a special 7 sided die for this.

I think we can all just ignore this post. This is a rules debate please do not post random jokes and garbage alike so we can keep our threads serious

Oh boy, excuuuuuuse me! I didn't realize all the other posts in this thread were classified as 'non-garbage' LOL


Still, I am glad you realized I was joking and informed everyone of the fact in case they thought I was serious.

Wait you mean you were not serious? Dang, there goes that strategy...

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 imweasel wrote:
I don't see anything about purpose built fortifications, I see reference to purpose built battlefield defences on page 109. Not purpose built fortifications.

That is because "Purpose-built fortifications" is on page 18, last sentence under Types of Cover Save.

It is. But the ADL is not listed as being that. Nothing is.
I suspect the "Purpose-built" part is mearly fluff.

Nothing is defined as Purpose Built Fortification anywhere, but there are rules for it? Seems like the OP may have a point there then?

The problem here is that nothing is listed as terrain type: fortification when there are specific rules for it and they use too many different mentionings of fortifications in seperate areas so now it is just a debate of what counts as a fortification because if an adl is a fortification on top of its current type I'm sure it would just be like any normal save and you take the highest. But that brings up the instance of it's going to ground rule etc etc

To further this assertion, the last sentence of the first paragraph on p114 says "All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your game." And what is the very first datasheet listed on that page? Yes, it is the ADL...

Beast wrote:
To further this assertion, the last sentence of the first paragraph on p114 says "All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your game." And what is the very first datasheet listed on that page? Yes, it is the ADL...

Yep, and that Datasheet lists it's Terrain Type as Defence Line, not Fortification.

Beast wrote:
To further this assertion, the last sentence of the first paragraph on p114 says "All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your game." And what is the very first datasheet listed on that page? Yes, it is the ADL...

i think you may have just hit a homerun with this one. Right when i was about to go over to the 3+ side of this debate you come in and show that there is no exception for what other rules say. You must use the rules in the datasheet only and none else

So I'm looking at Fortifications and Dilapidation on pg 96. And oddly (to some anyway) the whole thing refers to buildings as fortifications.

 grendel083 wrote:

Beast wrote:
To further this assertion, the last sentence of the first paragraph on p114 says "All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in your game." And what is the very first datasheet listed on that page? Yes, it is the ADL...

Yep, and that Datasheet lists it's Terrain Type as Defence Line, not Fortification.

And yet you buy it as a Fortification and place it on the field as per the Fortification deployment?

 grendel083 wrote:

That's sort of the point, it was stated that the ADL was listed under "Purpose-built Fortifiications".
It is mentioned on page 18, in the rule named "Types of Cover Saves" in the first paragraph, but it definatly doesn't list anything as this type.
I think some miss-quoting of "Purpose-buit Fortifications" has caused some of the confusion in this thread.

Actually Grendel, check p109 under "Fortification"- it's the second to last paragraph. That talks about the FOC chart where you have the option to purchase purpose-built battlefiled defenses and it then refers you to p114 (Fortifications)for the desription and selection of them....

Edit fat fingers and clarity..

As grendel pointed out there are fortifications (aka buildings) and Fortifications (aka FOC slot). fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. Fortifications use the rules listed in the data sheet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beast wrote:
Actually Grendel, check p109 under "Fortification"- it's the second to last paragraph. That talks about the FOC chart where you have the option to purchase purpose-built fortifications and it then refers youto p114 for the desription and selection of them....

No it refers to prpose-built defences.

Edit: Beast fixed his post, I'm not changing mine

Beast wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's sort of the point, it was stated that the ADL was listed under "Purpose-built Fortifiications".
It is mentioned on page 18, in the rule named "Types of Cover Saves" in the first paragraph, but it definatly doesn't list anything as this type.
I think some miss-quoting of "Purpose-buit Fortifications" has caused some of the confusion in this thread.

Actually Grendel, check p109 under "Fortification"- it's the second to last paragraph. That talks about the FOC chart where you have the option to purchase purpose-built fortifications and it then refers youto p114 for the desription and selection of them....

Hold up that was the problem earlier. It says "Purpose-built, battlefield defences" on page 109, not "Purpose-built Fortifications".

 imweasel wrote:
I don't see anything about purpose built fortifications, I see reference to purpose built battlefield defences on page 109. Not purpose built fortifications.

And yet the Heading of that paragraph is "Fortifications" and refers you to p114 where you may purchase these fortifications...

 Happyjew wrote:
As grendel pointed out there are fortifications (aka buildings) and Fortifications (aka FOC slot). fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. Fortifications use the rules listed in the data sheet.

Absolutley. It was a poor choice of names on GW's part.

Beast wrote:

 imweasel wrote:
I don't see anything about purpose built fortifications, I see reference to purpose built battlefield defences on page 109. Not purpose built fortifications.

And yet the Heading of that paragraph is "Fortifications" and refers you to p114 where you may purchase these fortifications...

Right because it is referring to the FOC slot "Fortifications".

 grendel083 wrote:

Beast wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's sort of the point, it was stated that the ADL was listed under "Purpose-built Fortifiications".
It is mentioned on page 18, in the rule named "Types of Cover Saves" in the first paragraph, but it definatly doesn't list anything as this type.
I think some miss-quoting of "Purpose-buit Fortifications" has caused some of the confusion in this thread.

Actually Grendel, check p109 under "Fortification"- it's the second to last paragraph. That talks about the FOC chart where you have the option to purchase purpose-built fortifications and it then refers youto p114 for the desription and selection of them....

Hold up that was the problem earlier. It says "Purpose-built, battlefield defences" on page 109, not "Purpose-built Fortifications".

Yeah I was fixing my post as you were calling me out... Regardless, let's all go to p114 and read that and then look at the choices of fortifications that it talks about... The first datasheet for these fortifications that you can purchase is the ADL...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"You can take a single fortification for each primary detachment in your force" So how can we choose an ADL if it is not one of the fortifications this is talking about?

Beast wrote:
"You can take a single fortification for each primary detachment in your force" So how can we choose an ADL if it is not one of the fortifications this is talking about?

It is a Fortification. The Type of Fortification that you purchase, not to be confused with the Terrain type Fortification.

 A GumyBear wrote:
I think we can all just ignore this post. This is a rules debate please do not post random jokes and garbage alike so we can keep our threads serious

This thread is a joke tbh

Two rules:
-Fortifications give 3+
-Defence Lines give 4+

ADL is written under the Fortification-section with Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line)
Three guesses what cover-save it will have!

I think you are making a distinction that is not supported by either the words themselves (they don't make the distinction you are making) or the context of the paragraphs on the page nor the ADL datasheet itself. Both the wording and the context support them being fortificaitons (which confer a 3+ cover)...

I really, really don't want this to be the case for ADLs since I face them all the time, but I think Betray may be right on this...

Edit- I was responding to Grendel but was typing slowly... :-(

Beast wrote:
I think you are making a distinction that is not supported by either the words themselves (they don't make the distinction you are making) or the context of the paragraphs on the page nor the ADL datasheet itself. Both the wording and the context support them being fortificaitons (which confer a 3+ cover)...

I really, really don't want this to be the case for ADLs since I face them all the time, but I think Betray may be right on this...

There is a distinction made in the rules, it's on Page 114.

Fortifcations Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your Fortication. This can be anything from a line of barricades to a large building

This shows that a Fortification needs a Terrain Type (and it's stated in their datasheets). It is not a Terrian Type itself.
If it is a Terrain Type, why does it need a Terrain Type?

Kangodo wrote:

 A GumyBear wrote:
I think we can all just ignore this post. This is a rules debate please do not post random jokes and garbage alike so we can keep our threads serious

This thread is a joke tbh

Two rules:
-Fortifications give 3+
-Defence Lines give 4+

ADL is written under the Fortification-section with Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line)
Three guesses what cover-save it will have!

GUESS #1

the batman symbol

GUESS #2

*this answer was removed due to lack of cowbell

GUESS #3

Defense Line! (4+)

 grendel083 wrote:

I propose that there are 2 definitions of "Fortication" defined in the BRB.

Fortification(1): First Fortification is a terrain type (or 'Cover Type' if you prefer: The cover granted by a piece of terrain). This is found on the Cover Chart of Page 18.

Fortification(2): The second is a piece of terrain purchased for your army and taking up the "Fortification" slot found on the FoC (page 114). All of these have their own datasheet.

Fortification(1) is a terrain type, while Fortification(2) requires a terrain type.

What we have here is an unhappy naming coincidence. Where 2 different things have been given the same name. Fortuatly the Datasheet for the AGL makes it clear which Terrain Type we need to use.

When I started reading this thread, I thought, "Oooooo, 3+ for everyone!" But I think Grendel's above has convinced me to stick with 4+. I think there is a case for 3+, but this argument is far more likely in my mind. GW carelessly used the same word for two different things Not surprising.

Fortifications. Page 114.. Terrain Type. This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your fortification. This can be anything from a line of barricades to a large building.

ADL. page 114. Terrain Type. Battlefield Debris (Defense Lines).

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 its cover save rather than +l

Barricades and Walls

If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a 4+ cover save


Clear and specific rules that show how to play the ADL. It is a 4+ cover save. Anything else is easter egging.

So what cover save does the landing pad give?

 imweasel wrote:
So what cover save does the landing pad give?

None because it is listed as a Unique terrain type apparently.

Lies! It'd have a 3+ if the unit is hidden behind it

I allways thought this was pretty cut and dry 0_o
Fortifications are generally buildings and enclosed areas.
ADL is a wall. (even says so after it)

Pretty sure its impossible to argue with its own wording.
Theres no way to even twist the rules.

Also, i love the title.
Surely though, if everyone plays it nothing like you do, then theres a pretty damn good chance your playing it wrong

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - you appea to be now entirely ignoring rule #1

Your argument has been disproven by showing you what specifc rules apply to the ADL. You are simply ignoring those contradicting you, as you seem to believe you have spotted something noone else has.

You havent

Me not responding to 2 people who can't construct a proper sentence doesn't disprove anything. If you post solid proof of something, backing it up with page numbers and quotes several times, and my response every time is inevitably some version of "nuh uh!", with no new evidence or explanation of why your proof is invalid, you would eventually quit responding to me as I have to them.

And for the record, the majority of the arguments against me have been: "Your argument has been disproven". Saying something has been disproven doesn't make it so, although to someone skimming through the thread, it may certainly appear that way.

I had a class with someone like you once. They brought up a point in the class, then the ENTIRE class told then exactly how and why that person was wrong. But after 30 minutes, the person was adamant that they were right.

Dude, if after 5 pages people are telling you you're wrong, you probably are. Specific ALWAYs overrides general rules. The general 3+ provided to "purpose built fortifications" is negated by the SPECIFIC rules for the ADL. I do see what you mean, and if specific did not override general rules you would be correct, but alas you are not.

Deal with it.

I think the OP made a solid case, and I was persuaded until someone pointed out the FAQ. We've been playing battlements as 3+ cover because of this very thing, but I feel the FAQ makes the intent clear.

Not the wording, mind you. It just made it all worse. Now battlements are just walls, and not fortifications? Why not just say that somewhere?

 imweasel wrote:
So what cover save does the landing pad give?

3+

I will first address two issues before I reach my conclusion: (1) how much cover does an ADL provide and (2) what effect does its terrain type have?

Each issue will be broken down into two parts: (1) givens provided by the rulebook and (2) a logical argument.

1) ADL & Cover Saves

Givens

The ADL is listed under the Fortifications section. Therefore, it is a fortification. (BRB, p. 114).

It is a purchased fortification [50 pts.] (BRB, p. 114).

Anything that is a fortification can be found to be listed on page 114 and in issues of White Dwarf magazine (BRB, p. 109).

Fortifications [not ruined] provide a 3+ cover save (BRB, p. 18).

Logical Argument

If a piece of terrain is a non-ruined fortification, then it provides a 3+ Cover save. The ADL is a non-ruined fortification. Therefore, the ADL provides a 3+ cover save.

2) ADL & Terrain Type

Givens

ADL has the terrain type: Battlefield Debris (Defensive Lines) (BRB, p. 114).

Elements of other types of terrain may apply to Battlefield Debris (BRB, p. 104).

Battlefield Debris (Defensive Lines) provide 2+ to cover for Go to Ground while functioning also as Barricades & Walls (BRB, p. 104).

Barricades & Walls provide a 4+ cover save and, for the purposes of assaults, count assaulting models to be in base to base contact if they are within 2" [of the Barricade/Wall] (BRB, p. 104).

Logical Argument

If the ADL functions as Battlefield Debris (Defensive Lines), which involves a range of rules [including but not limited to cover saves], and elements of other types of terrain [ex. fortifications] can apply, then the ADL can follow all of the rules listed under Battlefield Debris (Defensive Lines) while also having a different cover save appropriate to its being a non-ruined fortification.

Argument Conclusion

Therefore, the ADL is a fortification that, according to the rules, has the appropriate 3+ cover save, provides +2 to cover when models Go to Ground behind it, and counts assaulting models as being base to base with models behind it provided that they are within two inches [of the ADL].







Whew... that took a while.

The better FAQ this for quick reference because it took effort to pull that all together.

Props to Betray for his hard work.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 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.

except you are 100% wrong,

the aegis, by definition is BRB pg 114

Terrain type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines)

So you see that when you argue that the ADL is NOT battlefield debris, you are wrong

just because ADL takes up a fortification slot, does not mak the peice of terrain you purchase stop being battlefield debris

Therefore, the ADL is a fortification that, according to the rules, has the appropriate 3+ cover save, provides +2 to cover when models Go to Ground behind it, and counts assaulting models as being base to base with models behind it provided that they are within two inches [of the ADL].

And yet the specific rules of Fortifications tell you to play the ADL as a barricade / wall. Which by your conclusion, you are not doing.

 warpspider89 wrote:
The ADL is a non-ruined fortification. Therefore, the ADL provides a 3+ cover save.

It's Terrain Type: Defence Line, Why are you using Terrain Type: Fortification? The datasheet doesn't say this.

Fragile wrote:

Therefore, the ADL is a fortification that, according to the rules, has the appropriate 3+ cover save, provides +2 to cover when models Go to Ground behind it, and counts assaulting models as being base to base with models behind it provided that they are within two inches [of the ADL].

And yet the specific rules of Fortifications tell you to play the ADL as a barricade / wall. Which by your conclusion, you are not doing.

It says it uses the rules for defensive lines, which includes the rules for barricades/walls. Those rules involve more than simply cover saves so those are of particular relevance. The rules for battlefield debris state that other terrain based rules, such as those of fortifications, can be applied to those listed below. As such, the cover save rules overlap and the 3+ would apply.

It's Terrain Type: Defence Line, Why are you using Terrain Type: Fortification? The datasheet doesn't say this.

I am not using Terrain Type: Fortification because that doesn't exist.

It is a fortification, as per page 114, that has the applicable rules from Battlefield Debris (Defensive Lines).

 warpspider89 wrote:
I am not using Terrain Type: Fortification because that doesn't exist.

There's no terrain in the BRB that is a Fortification? are you quite sure? Bet I can find one...

It is a fortification, as per page 114, that has the applicable rules from Battlefield Debris (Defensive Lines).

So following those rules you get a 4+, yet you choose to use something else?

 grendel083 wrote:

 warpspider89 wrote:
I am not using Terrain Type: Fortification because that doesn't exist.

There's no terrain in the BRB that is a Fortification? are you quite sure? Bet I can find one...

It is a fortification, as per page 114, that has the applicable rules from Battlefield Debris (Defensive Lines).

So following those rules you get a 4+, yet you choose to use something else?

You are misquoting me. I said that there is no "terrain type: fortification". However, there are fortifications and the ADL is one of them.

Just look at the list of fortifications that begins on page 114. There are four fortifications listed: the Aegis Defence Line, the Skyshield Landing Pad, the Imperial Bastion, and the Fortress of Redemption.

Each of these fortifications has a terrain type. These direct the player to other rules that apply. In order these terrain types are: Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines), Unique, Medium Building, and Small/Medium/Small Building.

I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

 warpspider89 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 warpspider89 wrote:
I am not using Terrain Type: Fortification because that doesn't exist.

There's no terrain in the BRB that is a Fortification? are you quite sure? Bet I can find one...

It is a fortification, as per page 114, that has the applicable rules from Battlefield Debris (Defensive Lines).

So following those rules you get a 4+, yet you choose to use something else?

You are misquoting me. I said that there is no "terrain type: fortification". However, there are fortifications and the ADL is one of them.

Just look at the list of fortifications that begins on page 114. There are four fortifications listed: the Aegis Defence Line, the Skyshield Landing Pad, the Imperial Bastion, and the Fortress of Redemption.

Each of these fortifications has a terrain type. These direct the player to other rules that apply. In order these terrain types are: Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines), Unique, Medium Building, and Small/Medium/Small Building.

You glossed over the important part of that section. The Terrain type tells you what rules to use for each Fortification. In this case you are directed to use the Rules for barricades and walls for the ADL. Which you are not.

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

So an ADL isn't a Fortification then since we have to use the Defence Line rules? In that case let me field an ADL and a Bastion.

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

They are clearly two different things since they have separate meanings.

The ADL is a fortification that has the terrain type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line). It is clearly such since it is listed under the BRB section: Fortifications (which indicates that it is a fortification [this is supported by the FOC page) and on its write up lists its terrain type as above.

By your logic the Imperial Bastion is not a fortification but instead is a building because that is its terrain type.

 Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

So an ADL isn't a Fortification then since we have to use the Defence Line rules? In that case let me field an ADL and a Bastion.

You can, as part of standard terrain setup.
However if your oppenent wins the roll for setup he can place it first. And the Bastion will count as Dilapidated (p96)
It's all in the terrain rules...

"Barricades and walls" which you put on the table as a terrain so the battlefield looks nice have a 4+ cover save.

Fortifications which you put on the table as a FOC point-payed option have a 3+ cover save. Because fortifications give 3+. And its not only for aegis but also for skyshield, bastion, fortress.

If you would use ADL model as a terrain (and not as a point-paid fortification) then it would get only 4+ cover save. Silly situation but RAW.

But althought BetrayTheWorld was correct on this from the begining I don't believe it is possible to convience people who can't deal with being wrong on something. And there are also people who will disagree because they will think 3+ is too powerfull. It is often the problem when most of the people gaming group act like this :
"we are in majority so we are right"
and then your two options are: stop playing or let it go and play on 4+ cover save. Choose wisely ; )

 warpspider89 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

They are clearly two different things since they have separate meanings.

The ADL is a fortification that has the terrain type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line). It is clearly such since it is listed under the BRB section: Fortifications (which indicates that it is a fortification [this is supported by the FOC page) and on its write up lists its terrain type as above.

By your logic the Imperial Bastion is not a fortification but instead is a building because that is its terrain type.

The bastion is a building. How would you place troops inside if it wasn't a building?
I'm saying the ADL is a fortification (as in it uses a Fortifcation slot in the FOC), but is terrain type: Defence Line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xyxel wrote:
Fortifications which you put on the table as a FOC point-payed option have a 3+ cover save. Because fortifications give 3+.

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

 grendel083 wrote:

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

And mine says that it is a Fortification that happens to also be a Defense Line..

grendel083 wrote:

 Xyxel wrote:
Fortifications which you put on the table as a FOC point-payed option have a 3+ cover save. Because fortifications give 3+.

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

Well, then take another look at page 114 and read what is writen at the top, in capital letters. "FORTIFICATIONS" lol
(some people will pretend to be be blind, not to have to admit to a mistake)

Fortress of Redemption (with your logic grendel083) is not a fortification?
FOC and Terrain types are different thing. Fortifications have different kinds of terrain types.

 Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

And mine says that it is a Fortification that happens to also be a Defense Line..

So if in next months White Dwarf Games Workshop release a new Fortification:

Barbed Wire: 30pts
Terrain Type: Tanglewire (6+ cover save, p105)

You would try and claim a 3+ cover save because it was bought using the Fortification Slot?

Not all purchased Fortifications are in fact a Fortification. That's why you look to the Terrain Type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xyxel wrote:
Fortifications have different kinds of terrain types.

And you're choosing to ignore this fact, by applying a type not listed on the Datasheet.

 Xyxel wrote:

FOC and Terrain types are different thing. Fortifications have different kinds of terrain types.

Exactly! As a result of it being a fortification it provides a 3+ cover save and due to it having the terrain type Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) there will be two main effects:

(1) 2+ Cover Save for Go to Ground

(2) Assaulters engaging a unit behind the ADL count as being in base to base contact so long as they are within 2" of the ADL walls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

And mine says that it is a Fortification that happens to also be a Defense Line..

So if in next months White Dwarf Games Workshop release a new Fortification:

Barbed Wire: 30pts
Terrain Type: Tanglewire (6+ cover save, p105)

You would try and claim a 3+ cover save because it was bought using the Fortification Slot?

Not all purchased Fortifications are in fact a Fortification. That's why you look to the Terrain Type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xyxel wrote:
Fortifications have different kinds of terrain types.

And you're choosing to ignore this fact, by applying a type not listed on the Datasheet.

If they were released as fortifications, as your straw man argument suggests, then yes they would be fortifications.

Once again, if you look at the terrain type of an Imperial Bastion, then you would find that it is listed as Terrain Type: Medium Building rather than Terrain Type: Fortification. Again, this is because it is listed as a Fortification under the Fortification Section and the subsection 'Terrain Type' refers to additional relevant rules that apply to that particular Fortification.

Guys, OP stopped talking pages ago.

This obviously isn't his version of "intelligent discourse"

 Xyxel wrote:
Well, then take another look at page 114

Yes lets.
"All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in game"
All the information is there, Terrain Type: Battlefield Debis (Defence Line) (which is on page 104) yet you choose a rule on page 18 not listed on the Datasheet. Interesting...

Fortress of Redemption (with your logic grendel083) is not a fortification?

So you're saying it isn't a 4 part building? More interesting...

 grendel083 wrote:

 Xyxel wrote:
Well, then take another look at page 114

Yes lets.
"All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in game"
All the information is there, Terrain Type: Battlefield Debis (Defence Line) (which is on page 104) yet you choose a rule on page 18 not listed on the Datasheet. Interesting...

Fortress of Redemption (with your logic grendel083) is not a fortification?

So you're saying it isn't a 4 part building? More interesting...

I really just want someone to post a video of betray trying to argue about this in a big tournament like adepticon.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I really just want someone to post a video of betray trying to argue about this in a big tournament like adepticon.

Ha! It would be a very short video...

even if the aegis is a fortification, its a fortification with a special type (defence line) that gives it a 4+ cover

there are not two sets of rules for defence lines,

only one, that gives them 4+ cover, and overrides any general rules that might apply to the FO slot, in general, but not this terrain type in particular.

so while all "fortifications" even by the loose (probobly not RAI, definetly not RAW) definition that everything bought in the FO chart is a "fortification",

just because fortifications in general get a 3+, doesnt mean a fortification, with a specific rule stating it grants a 4+ save, still grants a 3+.

the specific entry for the type overrides the general rule for the slot.

 Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

And mine says that it is a Fortification that happens to also be a Defense Line..

And the specific rule of cover saves for its terrain type, which is BAttlefield debris (Defense Lines), is more specific than the general rule for Fortification cover saves.

Therefore according to page 104 "Defence lines follow all the same rules for barricades and walls" coupled with "If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a 4+ cover save" tells us that the 4+ is specific to the ADL fortification, which is different than the 3+ general rule for fortification cover saves.

It seems to me like the best answer would be one that includes all relevant rules. The answer of it having a 4+ cover save ignores more of the relevant rules than when it is considered to have a 3+ since that only has the 3+ override the 4+ rule.

Yeah, an Aegis Line is clearly stated to follow the rules for the Barricades and Walls under the Battle Field Debris section, which gives a 4+ cover save.

Just because the Aegis Line is under the chapter/book section called Fortifications doesn't mean it follows the rules for fortifications.

Furthermore, where does it say the Aegis Line is a purpose-built anything? If someone places terrain using linear plastic thingies of trees and makes a little tree circle around a unit, does that count as a purpose built fortification? The player did it on purpose didn't he? The answer of course is no, because what so many people have already stated, the Aegis Line follows specific rule written very specifically for it.

 warpspider89 wrote:
It seems to me like the best answer would be one that includes all relevant rules. The answer of it having a 4+ cover save ignores more of the relevant rules than when it is considered to have a 3+ since that only has the 3+ override the 4+ rule.

Except specific beats general, therefore the 4+ cover save specific rule beats the 3+ cover save general rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 warpspider89 wrote:
It seems to me like the best answer would be one that includes all relevant rules. The answer of it having a 4+ cover save ignores more of the relevant rules than when it is considered to have a 3+ since that only has the 3+ override the 4+ rule.

Except specific beats general, therefore the 4+ cover save specific rule beats the 3+ cover save general rule.

Good point. After all, the advanced rules an ADL, a Fortification with the terrain type Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines), are more specific than rules for a regular piece of Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines).

I'm looking at page 18 and I don't see the quote in the OP. Mine says, "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save. Further examples can be found in the Cover chart below and in the Battlefield Terrain section (see page 90)." The second sentence he has written there is instead found on page 109 - in other words, the link his quote makes between Purpose-built Fortifications (providing a 3+ cover save) and the fortifications on page 114 does not exist.

It seems clear that the ADL provides a 4+ cover save with a greater going to ground benefit and that some other, hypothetical, well-maintained fortification that you choose to include on your tabletop might be 3+.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm looking at page 18 and I don't see the quote in the OP. Mine says, "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save. Further examples can be found in the Cover chart below and in the Battlefield Terrain section (see page 90)." The second sentence he has written there is instead found on page 109 - in other words, the link his quote makes between Purpose-built Fortifications (providing a 3+ cover save) and the fortifications on page 114 does not exist.

It seems clear that the ADL provides a 4+ cover save with a greater going to ground benefit and that some other, hypothetical, well-maintained fortification that you choose to include on your tabletop might be 3+.

Is the ADL a purpose built fortification or is it not?

 warpspider89 wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm looking at page 18 and I don't see the quote in the OP. Mine says, "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save. Further examples can be found in the Cover chart below and in the Battlefield Terrain section (see page 90)." The second sentence he has written there is instead found on page 109 - in other words, the link his quote makes between Purpose-built Fortifications (providing a 3+ cover save) and the fortifications on page 114 does not exist.

It seems clear that the ADL provides a 4+ cover save with a greater going to ground benefit and that some other, hypothetical, well-maintained fortification that you choose to include on your tabletop might be 3+.

Is the ADL a purpose built fortification or is it not?

No. Page 114 only mentioned Fortifications, not Purpose-Built Fortifications.
And the ADL is listed as a Defence Line.

 warpspider89 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 warpspider89 wrote:
It seems to me like the best answer would be one that includes all relevant rules. The answer of it having a 4+ cover save ignores more of the relevant rules than when it is considered to have a 3+ since that only has the 3+ override the 4+ rule.

Except specific beats general, therefore the 4+ cover save specific rule beats the 3+ cover save general rule.

Good point. After all, the advanced rules an ADL, a Fortification with the terrain type Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines), are more specific than rules for a regular piece of Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines).

and therefore the specific ADL, a Fortification with the terrain type Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) cover save of 4+ wins out over the general fortification cover save.

 warpspider89 wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm looking at page 18 and I don't see the quote in the OP. Mine says, "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save. Further examples can be found in the Cover chart below and in the Battlefield Terrain section (see page 90)." The second sentence he has written there is instead found on page 109 - in other words, the link his quote makes between Purpose-built Fortifications (providing a 3+ cover save) and the fortifications on page 114 does not exist.

It seems clear that the ADL provides a 4+ cover save with a greater going to ground benefit and that some other, hypothetical, well-maintained fortification that you choose to include on your tabletop might be 3+.

Is the ADL a purpose built fortification or is it not?

No. Remember that the link the OP is drawing does not exist because his quote is incorrect (drawn from pages 90 pages apart). The book does not describe the ADL as a Purpose-built Fortification, as he has supposed. It describes it as a Battlefield Debris (Defense Lines).

Furthermore, the whole idea of a (Defense Lines) with a 3+ cover save is incoherent. The Defense Lines rule just makes the bonus from Going to Ground +2 instead of +1. It would be completely useless on an object with a 3+ save, making it clear that RAI is indeed that it is 4+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, I'd like to change my answer there. It might be a purpose-built fortification. It can certainly fit the wording a few ways. It's not clear if the term is meant to encompass something as unsubstantial as the defense line, but it might. The thing is, in this case there are rules telling us specifically what the cover save of an ADL is. The specific overrides the general. There is no rule that says we should treat the ADL as a Purpose-built Fortification as the quote the OP used to back this up does not actually appear in the book. Given that, the RAW is that it provides a 4+ save.

 warpspider89 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

They are clearly two different things since they have separate meanings.

The ADL is a fortification that has the terrain type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line). It is clearly such since it is listed under the BRB section: Fortifications (which indicates that it is a fortification [this is supported by the FOC page) and on its write up lists its terrain type as above.

By your logic the Imperial Bastion is not a fortification but instead is a building because that is its terrain type.

If you know the terrain type, then why do you insist on not using the rules for it? If the Terrain Type on the datasheet lists the terrain type as Battlefied Debris (Defense Lines), then you use those rules, not the catch-all rules listed at the beginning of the Cover section on page 40?

 McNinja wrote:

 warpspider89 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

They are clearly two different things since they have separate meanings.

The ADL is a fortification that has the terrain type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line). It is clearly such since it is listed under the BRB section: Fortifications (which indicates that it is a fortification [this is supported by the FOC page) and on its write up lists its terrain type as above.

By your logic the Imperial Bastion is not a fortification but instead is a building because that is its terrain type.

If you know the terrain type, then why do you insist on not using the rules for it? If the Terrain Type on the datasheet lists the terrain type as Battlefied Debris (Defense Lines), then you use those rules, not the catch-all rules listed at the beginning of the Cover section on page 40?

The Fortress of Redemption is a good example. The Terrain Type of that Fortification is Building. It should have a different cover type then shouldn't it?

My argument is essentially that a categorical mistake has been made. The Terrain Type and the Fortification classification have been viewed as one and the same but they are two different categories that cannot be compared.

Edit: And indeed I am using the rules on the data sheet. I am including that it is a Defence Line while also including the fact that it is a Fortification that has been listed in the Fortification Section. Now please stop attacking me. Attack the argument with the goal of providing a more comprehensive explanation that includes all relevant rules to the entry than I provided on page 5.

It's fairly obvious how the Fortifications work.

The "purpose-built fortifications" are an actual thing; if, say you are behind (not inside or on top of) a Bastion, you get a 3+ cover save, as per page 18, heading "Types of Cover Saves."

As per dilapidation rules, you can only use buildings as dilapidated fortifications. This is clear because of both the use of the word "buildings" and the bolded section stating that the armor value is 2 points lower than normal if not purchased in the Fortification slot on the FOC, as per page 96, under the heading "Fortifications and Dilapidation."

Remember, specific ALWAYS overrides general rules. The Terrain Type listed on the datasheet overrides and general rule because it is specific to the fortification in question, as per page 7, under the heading "Basic vs. Advanced."

 McNinja wrote:
It's fairly obvious how the Fortifications work.

The "purpose-built fortifications" are an actual thing; if, say you are behind (not inside or on top of) a Bastion, you get a 3+ cover save, as per page 18, heading "Types of Cover Saves."

As per dilapidation rules, you can only use buildings as dilapidated fortifications. This is clear because of both the use of the word "buildings" and the bolded section stating that the armor value is 2 points lower than normal if not purchased in the Fortification slot on the FOC, as per page 96, under the heading "Fortifications and Dilapidation."

Remember, specific ALWAYS overrides general rules. The Terrain Type listed on the datasheet overrides and general rule because it is specific to the fortification in question, as per page 7, under the heading "Basic vs. Advanced."

Yes and the equivalent of a dilapidated ADL is a regular Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines).

The advanced rules for the ADL includes it being a fortification and not just a certain type of battlefield debris.

But the ADL Fortification, Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) classification is more specific than a normal fortification.

Therefore you use the more specific Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) 4+ cover save rules and not the general fortification cover save rules.

 warpspider89 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
It's fairly obvious how the Fortifications work.

The "purpose-built fortifications" are an actual thing; if, say you are behind (not inside or on top of) a Bastion, you get a 3+ cover save, as per page 18, heading "Types of Cover Saves."

As per dilapidation rules, you can only use buildings as dilapidated fortifications. This is clear because of both the use of the word "buildings" and the bolded section stating that the armor value is 2 points lower than normal if not purchased in the Fortification slot on the FOC, as per page 96, under the heading "Fortifications and Dilapidation."

Remember, specific ALWAYS overrides general rules. The Terrain Type listed on the datasheet overrides and general rule because it is specific to the fortification in question, as per page 7, under the heading "Basic vs. Advanced."

Yes and the equivalent of a dilapidated ADL is a regular Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines).

The advanced rules for the ADL includes it being a fortification and not just a certain type of battlefield debris.

I do see what you're getting at. The ADL is the only fortification in the section that actually describes its cover save - it's inconsistent with the others, which more or less describe the properties of the fortification for purposes of movement and defense. However, it says it's a "Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines)" and with your interpretation the Defence Lines part would be silly - you can't improve your cover save past 2+, so it might as well just be a "Battlefield Debris (Barricades and Walls)", which would have the exact same effect.

So I guess we are left with two possibilities:
- RAI is that the Defence Lines are 4+ save and Going to Ground gives you 2+ behind the ADL
- the writers made a mistake and gave it a redundant special rule and it's meant to have a 3+ save

I think the first is more likely, especially given that being bought as a Fortification for the purpose of the army list does not necessarily mean the ADL is what the writers had in mind as "Purpose-built Fortification." That suggests to me more of a building or, well, something more permanent than a bunch of interlocking shields. But it's possible.

 warpspider89 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
It's fairly obvious how the Fortifications work.

The "purpose-built fortifications" are an actual thing; if, say you are behind (not inside or on top of) a Bastion, you get a 3+ cover save, as per page 18, heading "Types of Cover Saves."

As per dilapidation rules, you can only use buildings as dilapidated fortifications. This is clear because of both the use of the word "buildings" and the bolded section stating that the armor value is 2 points lower than normal if not purchased in the Fortification slot on the FOC, as per page 96, under the heading "Fortifications and Dilapidation."

Remember, specific ALWAYS overrides general rules. The Terrain Type listed on the datasheet overrides and general rule because it is specific to the fortification in question, as per page 7, under the heading "Basic vs. Advanced."

Yes and the equivalent of a dilapidated ADL is a regular Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines).

The advanced rules for the ADL includes it being a fortification and not just a certain type of battlefield debris.

That is entirely wrong. The SPECIFIC rules, i.e the terrain type. supercedes the Purpose Built cover save rule. Also, there is no rule allowing you to use a dilapdated ADL as a defense line. You can only have dilapidated buildings, that is things with an Armor Value. Battlefield Debris does not have any Armor Value, so you cannot use it as a dilapidated building. You can however, just use it as a Defense Line if your opponent oks it and you follow the rules for placing terrain.

What s/he's saying is it's possible the Terrain Type isn't intended to say anything about the cover save, as none of the other Fortifications in the section describe the cover save at all - that it's just intended to describe the properties for movement and firing. I think it's more likely the section is just inconsistent in its use, but there it is.

So according to the OP, there also should be a terrain type: Bloodthorn Hedge.

Maybe the ADL is a Fortification that should be giving a 3+ cover save. But p.114 tells us at Terrain Type: "This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your fortification."
This does not mean that you can use a part of those specific terrain type rules while ignoring another part of those same rules. You need to use the full rules for that terrain type (thus including the 4+ cover save for barricades and walls).
This also means that the Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines) is a more specific (advanced) rule than the (basic) 3+ save for fortifications.

Now let's look at P.7 Basic versus Advanced: "where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
thus meaning that the 4+ cover save overrides the 3+ cover save granted by the ADL.

So even if there was no difference between the fortifications (as in uses up a fortification slot) and fortification used in Terrain Type, the ADL would still grant a 4+ cover save.

I think this discussion could use some further examples. I think the best one being the landing pad.

If I am on top with the walls/shielded up, I am granted a 4+ invul save. However, if I have a model behind the wall that obscures it by 25%, would I not get a 3+ cover save since I am obscured by a fortification? This is per the advocates that adl gives a 3+ cover save. However, if I were to be hit with a template weapon I would still get a 4+ invul save, right?

I need to get me a landing pad if that's the case.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
What s/he's saying is it's possible the Terrain Type isn't intended to say anything about the cover save, as none of the other Fortifications in the section describe the cover save at all - that it's just intended to describe the properties for movement and firing. I think it's more likely the section is just inconsistent in its use, but there it is.

That's exactly what I think the OP, and for certain myself as well, are trying to get get at. It seems to me that the cover safe is the same across for all Fortifications, since they are all fortifications, and each as a rule subset affecting its use based on its terrain type.

I feel like that view is the most all encompassing of all presented rules and therefore is the best answer.

I agree that the interpretation that I am presenting would make the 2+ for Go To Ground redundant for the ADL, but it would still be important for use of neutral ADLs right? Those ones would give a 4+, rather than a 3+, cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 imweasel wrote:
I think this discussion could use some further examples. I think the best one being the landing pad.

If I am on top with the walls/shielded up, I am granted a 4+ invul save. However, if I have a model behind the wall that obscures it by 25%, would I not get a 3+ cover save since I am obscured by a fortification? This is per the advocates that adl gives a 3+ cover save. However, if I were to be hit with a template weapon I would still get a 4+ invul save, right?

I need to get me a landing pad if that's the case.

I think that you are right. The skyshield landing pad is a fortification and all fortifications that are paid for by a player provide a 3+ cover save provided that the models using it fits the appropriate requirements. Further, it will provide the 4+ invulnerable.

Based on what your advocating, why would a neutral fortification ever grant a cover save besides a 3+?

dilapedated affects armour value, and armour value only,
and only on buildings,

you are making up a 2nd profile for the aegis defense line,

RAW is the specific rule that applies to defence lines is a 4+ cover save,

end of story,
making up rules about dilapidated defence lines, is making up rules, not playing RAW.

units behind a defence line, get a 4+, thats the specific rule for this specific unit, overriding the general fortification rule (also your assuption that aegis is a fort at all, is not proven)

there is no such thing as a neutral, or dilapidated defence line, that is made up.

ignoring what the terrain type, and the rules that go with it,

is ignoring rules, not something allowed out side of house rules

 imweasel wrote:
Based on what your advocating, why would a neutral fortification ever grant a cover save besides a 3+?

Because they want an extra .1667% chance to save a model that has a 3+ save already.

but they don't want to give it to everyone.

You know, 6th ed was the time of 5+ cover saves. Why would they suddenly allow 3+ cover saves in such abundance? They're not that stupid...

easysauce wrote:
dilapedated affects armour value, and armour value only, and only on buildings, you are making up a 2nd profile for the aegis defense line, RAW is the specific rule that applies to defence lines is a 4+ cover save, end of story, making up rules about dilapidated defence lines, is making up rules, not playing RAW. units behind a defence line, get a 4+, thats the specific rule for this specific unit, overriding the general fortification rule (also your assuption that aegis is a fort at all, is not proven) there is no such thing as a neutral, or dilapidated defence line, that is made up. ignoring what the terrain type, and the rules that go with it, is ignoring rules, not something allowed out side of house rules

The answer is also easysauce. Dilapitated buildings are ruins, not fortifications. Therefore, they provide a 4+, not a 3+, cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 imweasel wrote:
Based on what your advocating, why would a neutral fortification ever grant a cover save besides a 3+?

Because they want an extra .1667% chance to save a model that has a 3+ save already.

but they don't want to give it to everyone.

You know, 6th ed was the time of 5+ cover saves. Why would they suddenly allow 3+ cover saves in such abundance? They're not that stupid...

Attacking people is ad homonym even when it is passive aggression. Personally, I am arguing because I believe this is the correct answer. It isn't for me. It is for everyone who chooses to use an ADL.

As for the abundance comment, 3+ cover saves wouldn't be in "abundance" in the sense that they would fill a given battle. It's not like any piece of terrain provides them. Only bought fortifications would provide that good of a cover save. It actually makes complete sense from a GW standpoint because it encourages players to buy their fortifications rather than using regular terrain.

 warpspider89 wrote:
Dilapitated buildings are ruins, not fortifications.

Dilapidated fortifications are Dilapidated fortifications. There is no such thing as a "Dilapitated building".

You have buildings, ruins and Dilapidated fortifications as terrain (Amongst the other types of terrain). (P. 96 describes Dilapidated fortifications)

"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. A dilapidated fortification has 2 fewer points of Armour Value on each facing than is normal for a building of its type. Furthermore, its emplaced weapons cannot be fired." P. 96

Only when you are using a fortification as a "'neutral'buildings on the battlefield" do they count as dilapidated.

Regular buildings, that are not the Bastion or FoR are assigned an AV as normal when you and your opponent discuss terrain elements.

imweasel wrote:I think this discussion could use some further examples. I think the best one being the landing pad.
If I am on top with the walls/shielded up, I am granted a 4+ invul save. However, if I have a model behind the wall that obscures it by 25%, would I not get a 3+ cover save since I am obscured by a fortification? This is per the advocates that adl gives a 3+ cover save. However, if I were to be hit with a template weapon I would still get a 4+ invul save, right?
I need to get me a landing pad if that's the case.

That's all correct.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:What s/he's saying is it's possible the Terrain Type isn't intended to say anything about the cover save, as none of the other Fortifications in the section describe the cover save at all - that it's just intended to describe the properties for movement and firing.

Again, correct.

imweasel wrote:Based on what your advocating, why would a neutral fortification ever grant a cover save besides a 3+?

Because by definition(from the FoC section), if it is neutral, then it is not a fortification and follows the standard rules for it's terrain type.



@ Those mentioning that I haven't posted in awhile, I work 3rd shift, and had to sleep. Thanks for your concern.

 Jackal wrote:

Surely though, if everyone plays it nothing like you do, then theres a pretty damn good chance your playing it wrong

There are sheep, there are shepherds, and there are wolves.

One believes your statement, one purports to believe your statement, and one eats sheep. Which are you?

None of those choices, as I reject your false tetrachotomy - yet another logical fallacy you have committed

Fortification, the FOC slot, != purpose built fortification. Which you are claiming is the case, therefore you are autoamtically wrong.

Your argument is still disproven, so can you before posting again please follow the tenets, and provide some rules quotes otherwise?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:What s/he's saying is it's possible the Terrain Type isn't intended to say anything about the cover save, as none of the other Fortifications in the section describe the cover save at all - that it's just intended to describe the properties for movement and firing.

Again, correct.

Please give me an exact rules quote in the fortification section, relevant to the ADL that tells me that I am to only use the terrain type for movement.

Currently, I'm reading, quite clearly (and explicitly)

BRB, Page 114, Terrain Type wrote:
This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your fortification. This can be anything from a line of Barricades to a large building.

Please tell me exactly where in that text, the only text that tells me what terrain rules to use with fortifications, it says "these only apply to movement".

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

imweasel wrote:Based on what your advocating, why would a neutral fortification ever grant a cover save besides a 3+?

Because by definition(from the FoC section), if it is neutral, then it is not a fortification and follows the standard rules for it's terrain type.

@ Those mentioning that I haven't posted in awhile, I work 3rd shift, and had to sleep. Thanks for your concern.

Please give me a direct quote from the "Chosing your army section" that tells me that these buildings are neutral.

The only thing even remotely relevant is in Fortifications and Dilapidation, which specifically refers to Buildings.

I'll even quote it:

BRB, Page 96, Fortifications and Dilapidation wrote:
In the chosing your army section (page 108), you'll see that you can add some buildings to your army, allowing your troops to deploy and fight from a strong position.
You might also use some of the fortifications as 'neutral' buildings on the battlefield.

This is the only reference to dilapidation, or to neutral terrain.

And we already have a definition of building. It needs to be:

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

This refers to the rules of "Buildings section" so, between 92 and 97.

Please stop ignoring these points and calling them old evidence. They are blatantly written in the rulebook and rather than adress them, you've done nothing but complain that we've brought up the same (very valid and definitive) evidence, waiting for you to actually do something with them.

You can't ignore these holes in your argument, no matter how much you want to.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:


There are sheep, there are shepherds, and there are wolves.

One believes your statement, one purports to believe your statement, and one eats sheep. Which are you?

I'm pretty sure you mean "Choses to Follow the statement" here, as purport simply means "Claims to follow". Do you mean to say that Sheepherders pretend to follow?
Because I'm pretty sure the statement calls for shepherders to lead rather than follow anyway. Also, common convention is important in a board game that's based on social interaction.
You can't go around eating your opponents because they don't agree with you.

So, in fact I believe there are three classes of players:

1. The kind that read the rulebook for what it says and does their best to emulate the rulebooks rules.
2. The kind that is told how to read the rulebook for what it says (or that simply asks a question when they don't know.)

and then there's people like you. 3. The kind who model a Trygon charging forward, not because it looks cool, but because you shave 2" off the silhouette. The people who fight against the grain, make enemies for themselves and insult other people, just to get a survival rate increase of 16.667% on toy soldiers.

Everyone is not doing Aegis Defense Lines wrong, you have a misconception and you refuse to admit it is wrong. It is explicitly stated within the context of the model entry for the ADLs that they're Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) and that they're meant to be used in that way, but you refuse to admit this. You just want to have your little argument so you can call yourself a wolf.

Good luck getting a game from anyone who actually understands these rules.

Now, I know you don't like to respond to me, because you think I'm a goblin and all, but your argument cannot be sound [/b]until[b] you address these problems, you cannot cite those evidences. They are not relevant to aegis defence lines.

So things in the Fortification FOC have the fortification Terrain type, that means that according to you vehicles in the fast attack slot are al fast vehicles even if their profile says not. And all vehicles in a heavy support slot are Heavy vehicles.
This is basically what you are saying.

You're half right, in a sense.

Let me re-quote your OP Rules quotes.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
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.

For the purposes of ADL in the full or advanced rules you only use the rules relevant to its Datasheet. In the Basic rules all fortifications are classified as a 3+. Now this does not preclude the ADL from being a fortification, only that it has advanced rules that are not covered by the basic blanket 'All fortifications are a 3+ cover save' basic rule. The advanced rules are covered on its Data sheet, as has been stated numerous times, which they follow the Advanced terrain rules for Walls and Barricades; giving them a 4+ cover save. In addition to that any unit that goes to ground behind an ADL receives +2 to the cover save rather than the usual +1. Placing Fortifications only applies to the placement of any terrain bought for your Fortification FoC Slot.

The problem you are having is you are not distinguishing the difference between the FoC slot Fortifications, Basic rules Reference to Fortifications and Advanced rules reference to Fortifications. As you have found they lead to some odd clashes of rules that make no sense...even by GWs standards

So lets go over it once again.

-Use of the word Fortifications: All pertain to terrain bought for the FoC slot. But if they have a type or not is covered in the advanced rules.

-Basic Rules: All fortifications are a 3+ cover save.

-Advanced Rules: See the Data Sheet and refer the relevant pages as per its Terrain Type. For example the ADL is listed as; Pg 114 Terrain Type: Defense Lines. Which we are then listed as; Pg104 Defense Lines: 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.

As you can see there is a big difference between the Basic and Advanced rule set.

And yes, before you accuse me of not reading the whole thread; I have. I find it amusing that you scream straw man at people who quote the only rules that are relevant to the advanced rules for the ADL; Yet your entire argument is based on a straw man principle that we read and use rules that have no gravity on the situation....like I said...amusing.

 Esparoba3 wrote:
So things in the Fortification FOC have the fortification Terrain type, that means that according to you vehicles in the fast attack slot are al fast vehicles even if their profile says not. And all vehicles in a heavy support slot are Heavy vehicles.
This is basically what you are saying.

You're far better at imparting a logical reduction than our OP is at calling Logical fallacy.

Interestingly, on Page 89 there is a picture with examples of different types of terrain. Included is an ADL with Gun.

The description says the players have agreed to use the gun emplacements rule, seeing as there is a gun in this line. Clearly it wasn't bought by anyone, just placed on the field.

I have no idea who this helps, if anyone.

After reading more of the Rules and skimming over new arguments, I have reached the conclusion that:
GW really didn't think this one through at all, and it's almost impossible to be sure what was meant and what is definitely allowed... And I'm usually fine playing RAI.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Interestingly, on Page 89 there is a picture with examples of different types of terrain. Included is an ADL with Gun.

The description says the players have agreed to use the gun emplacements rule, seeing as there is a gun in this line. Clearly it wasn't bought by anyone, just placed on the field.

I have no idea who this helps, if anyone.

After reading more of the Rules and skimming over new arguments, I have reached the conclusion that:
GW really didn't think this one through at all, and it's almost impossible to be sure what was meant and what is definitely allowed... And I'm usually fine playing RAI.

The rules are fairly explicit. ADLs make use of the Battlefield Debris: Defence Lines rules, which, aside from adding a bonus for going to ground, are the same as walls, giving us a 4+ cover save.

What OP is doing is trying to take two rules which are neither explicitly related nor intended to be related (the ones found on page 18, and the ones found on 96 and in the fortifications section), mash them all together to get a final result which is not at all how the rulebook was intended.

There is a simple, clear way to play ADLs that Betray is refusing to use simplicity.

In the word of Tolstoy,

There is no greatness where there is not simplicity, goodness and truth.

There is no simplicity in what Betray is Arguing.
There is no goodness in what Betray is Arguing - he's using this to gain an advantage that is realistically uncalled for.
Finally, there is no truth to what he's saying. And he won't even address the explicit evidence to his contrary.

So if in next months White Dwarf Games Workshop release a new Fortification:

Barbed Wire: 30pts
Terrain Type: Tanglewire (6+ cover save, p105)

Some people would try and claim a 3+ cover save because it was bought using the Fortification Slot?

Not all purchased Fortifications are in fact a Fortification.

Because by definition(from the FoC section), if it is neutral, then it is not a fortification and follows the standard rules for it's terrain type.

What? This makes no sense at all. If it's neutral, it's not a purchased fortification, but it's still a fortification.

I'd be interested in someone posting, with page quote, the cover save of a medium or small building.

 warpspider89 wrote:
I'd be interested in someone posting, with page quote, the cover save of a medium or small building.

Small wooden building?
Medium Armoured Plascrete building?
Cover saves depend on what is obscuring the target. As with all terrain that's not defined, it's up to you and your opponent to determine before the battle starts. Look at the terrain piece and work out the appropriate save. This is the very basis of how cover saves work.
What do think would be an appropriate save granted by a heavily armoured building?

 warpspider89 wrote:
I'd be interested in someone posting, with page quote, the cover save of a medium or small building.

Why would we do that?
The discussion is about ADL and Defence Lines are clearly addressed in the 'Battlefield Debris'-part as having a 4+ cover save.

Unless the FAQ it saying its a 3+ im never going to argue for it because its one of those "rule weaving" things to get a 3+ cover.

It says its a Battlefield Debris (Defense Line) not a Fortification under the Terrain Type when you purchase it from the BRB. Going to wtf those two types mean, its a 4+.

Im a stickler for cover save rules because its pretty much the only save i ever get as an ork player, and even i say its not a 3+ lol. Actually aside from the vehicle being partically behind a purchased Bastian i dont know wth would cause the 3+ save anyway as the top of one sure doesnt.

People keep arguing that the ADL has specific rules, but it doesn't. It just has a generic terrain type listed on it's data sheet, like every other fortification. You have to refer to another section of the book to find anything that says 4+. And in the section on cover, it says fortifications confer 3+. It refers to the ADL as both a fortification and defense line on the same page(114). If you want specific quotes and page numbers nos, see the first page. Nothing has really changed from when I first posted it.

I'm mostly getting the run around from 2 guys who post over and over again in the thread. There aren't nearly as many people posting disagreement as it looks like, because half the pages are 2 guys talking. And I said, about 5 pages ago that I wouldn't be responding to them any more, because when I DO quote a page number, and do the work to dig up the information, they ignore it like I never said it to begin with, then just loudly post over and over that the quote I quoted doesn't exist to drown out the truth in pages and pages of garbage. I've listed page numbers. People can read for themselves now.

This thread seems to have gone as far as it can productively go, and the rules summed up pretty comprehensively.