This thread interested me.

While the original (locked) thread covers both arguments rather extensively (and at times vitriolically) I am interested to know how the number bear out.

EDIT: This isn't intended to be a thread for a rules discussion. The original thread contains seven pages of that, and it is doubtful that anyone on either side can contribute anything new to the discussion. For the sake of brevity, I will provide the relative rules that are being discussed. By all means add something if you have something meaningful (and friendly!) to provide, but the rules have already been discussed ad nauseum.

The Rules 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.

How do you play the Aegis Defense line?

I read the thread at the time. I kept out of it, seeing merrits on both side.
How we play it is 4+. 100PNTS for 4+ place-where-you-like guarenteed cover is fine, really.

;Edit; With 3+ I could run a better Nid Warrior based army though

I play it as a 4+ beccause if you look on rules for an Aegis Defence Line on page 114 it says

"Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris: (Defence lines).

So you go to the rules for Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) on page 104

"Defence lines 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 covers saver rather than +l"

And right there on the same page it gives you the barricades and walls rules which state

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

The people claiming it's a 3+ are quoting page 18 which gives you the basic cover chart which state

"Fortifications 3+"

and they'd be right if an ADL stated "Terrain Type: Fortifications", but it doesn't, so they're not. Logic is a wonderful thing.

Battlefield Debris conveys a 4+ cover save. Defence lines are specified as Battlefield Debris in the rule book. I don't see where there's a grey area. If people are that desperate for a better cover save then just go to ground behind it for a 2+ cover save. Job done.

its pretty cut and dry...i dont see why there is an issue with it really...

P.114 and 104 have all the answers.
I cant find anywhere that mentions 3+. Except for the 3++ shield generator.

Holy Emperor, can we not bring this topic up again?

Sorry, I should have clarified: I'm not really interested in a discussion of the rules. I linked a thread that contains all the arguments both for and against, so there isn't a reason to go over them again. I'm just interested in getting some cold hard numbers to find out who comes down on which side of that particular issue.

Thanks for responding!

Based on the BRB rules for Battlefield Debris with the "Defense Line" specs...your getting 4+ normal with a 2+ for going to ground.
The exception being the Gun itself having a normal armor save of 3+ with the 4+ cover being available for low AP shots at the gun (assuming the shot came across the ADL and not from behind...melta wolf-scouts and the like coming from the sides and/or back edge).

(EDIT) And while the unit firing the gun can GTG for the 2+, the gun itself can not. Also noting that the gun and the unit firing the gun are seperate units and can not be targeted together (although pie-plates and blasts can give you incidental hits on one or the other depending on placement, scatter, etc).

4+ obviously.

I think it is hilarious that there are more than double the people who haven't even read the thread that think it is a 4+, which is the correct answer, than those that had read the thread and think it's a 3+.

Is the Skyshield Landing Pad a 3+ cover save?

 TheKbob wrote:
Is the Skyshield Landing Pad a 3+ cover save?

Wrong thread maybe?

This thread is for the Aegis Defense Line and How do you play it.

Don't feel like reading a 7-page thread because the rules are perfectly clear on this.

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.

Specific overrules general. A general un-specified fortification is a 3+ cover save, but the ADL rules explicitly say that it uses different rules and grants a 4+ cover save. End of discussion.

 Peregrine wrote:
Don't feel like reading a 7-page thread because the rules are perfectly clear on this.

Specific overrules general. A general un-specified fortification is a 3+ cover save, but the ADL rules explicitly say that it uses different rules and grants a 4+ cover save. End of discussion.

No, no, Peregrine. You see, it'll NEVER be 'End of Discussion' on the topic, and the rules are NOT 'perfectly clear'. And that is simply because there is seemingly a different interpretation. Rightly or wrongly, for good or bad, with whatever motivation, other folk have a different opinion.

And no matter how contrived and foolish it is to consider giving the Aegis Defence Line a 3+ Cover Save, we must not deny individuals the right to have their voice heard. For that way lies darkness, my friend.

I actually thought it was a 3+ save before I read the thread, because I hadn't noticed that it was meant to be 4+ and knew fortifications were meant to be 3+ from the shooting section. After the events of the thread I felt like it was clear enough that it's meant to be 4+, though the whole thing could be explained better in the book.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I actually thought it was a 3+ save before I read the thread, because I hadn't noticed that it was meant to be 4+ and knew fortifications were meant to be 3+ from the shooting section. After the events of the thread I felt like it was clear enough that it's meant to be 4+, though the whole thing could be explained better in the book.

As with most things.
I don't remember the WHFB BRB being even close to as messy as the current 40k is when I played FB back in the early nineties.
How hard would it be to just write next to it "confers a 4+ cover save to anyone crouching behind it like a little girl."

No, no. We have to make everything referential. it's a Borne Again Christian. See page 666 for rules. Borne Again Christian: Confers special rules Never a Glutton and One With the Light. See pages 1000 and 8009. AND ON WE GO. It irks me, that's all I'm saying.

Henrythesecond wrote:
No, no, Peregrine. You see, it'll NEVER be 'End of Discussion' on the topic, and the rules are NOT 'perfectly clear'.

Yes they are. It says explicitly what cover save you get. There's about as much "ambiguity" as there is in debating whether bolters are STR 4 or STR 10.

 Purifier wrote:

I don't remember the WHFB BRB being even close to as messy as the current 40k is when I played FB back in the early nineties.

The early nineties didn't have an internet full of people who read the rules they way they want rather than what they say.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

I don't remember the WHFB BRB being even close to as messy as the current 40k is when I played FB back in the early nineties.

The early nineties didn't have an internet full of people who read the rules they way they want rather than what they say.

Although that is certainly true, I had my own issues with 40k before I got on dakkadakka.

When I played WHFB, I used to be able to almost cite every rule in it, and each one seemed to make sense with the previous rule. It was a logical following of rules. I don't have that with 40k.

Obviously, I may be seeing it through the fog of nostalgia, but even if I am, shouldn't GW be able to write something decent with the experience they have to draw on? It still irks me, that's all.

 Purifier wrote:

Obviously, I may be seeing it through the fog of nostalgia,

That's 90% of the justification of your view on the matter. The other 10% is probably that you understand wargaming better now which allows you to see the holes.

No edition of fantasy battles has ever had less cumbersome rules than any edition of 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:

There's about as much "ambiguity" as there is in debating whether bolters are STR 4 or STR 10.

This statement would be true if it said bolters were Str 4 on one page, then said that they were Str 10 on another.

The ambiguity in this comes from the fact that every reference to the ADL refers to it as a fortification, purpose-built fortification, or purpose-built battlefield defense. Purpose-built fortifications give a 3+ cover save per the cover section.

The ADL also has a generic terrain type of Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines). As we all know, terrain types involved several various rules dependent upon type(not just cover save). In the terrain type section, it's generic terrain type offers a 4+ cover save.

There are many pieces of terrain that are/could be classified as Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines), but only one of them is considered a fortification: the Aegis Defense Line. Arguments can be made for both sides, and no one can "win" the argument without input from GW because the rules are in conflict with neither of them specifically categorized as a "Basic" rule. I encourage you to email GW questions on this so that hopefully they FAQ it. I've already sent mine, and was disappointed to see that nothing about it was included in the recent FAQ update.

>90% say 4+. I don't think we could get that kind of consensus that 2+2=4.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

There's about as much "ambiguity" as there is in debating whether bolters are STR 4 or STR 10.

This statement would be true if it said bolters were Str 4 on one page, then said that they were Str 10 on another.

The ambiguity in this comes from the fact that every reference to the ADL refers to it as a fortification, purpose-built fortification, or purpose-built battlefield defense. Purpose-built fortifications give a 3+ cover save per the cover section.

The ADL also has a generic terrain type of Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines). As we all know, terrain types involved several various rules dependent upon type(not just cover save). In the terrain type section, it's generic terrain type offers a 4+ cover save.

There are many pieces of terrain that are/could be classified as Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines), but only one of them is considered a fortification: the Aegis Defense Line. Arguments can be made for both sides, and no one can "win" the argument without input from GW because the rules are in conflict with neither of them specifically categorized as a "Basic" rule. I encourage you to email GW questions on this so that hopefully they FAQ it. I've already sent mine, and was disappointed to see that nothing about it was included in the recent FAQ update.

It is just the name of the FoC section where you can purchase the ADL, that doesn't mean anything you pick will be classified as a fortification. It is like saying that any havoc/devastator squad armed with plasmaguns/meltaguns can't move and shoot normally because they are heavy and heavies need to be stationary to fire with normal BS any heavy choice on the codexes would actually not be allowed to move and shoot with normal BS unless they are tanks.

Pyrian wrote:
>90% say 4+. I don't think we could get that kind of consensus that 2+2=4.

The status quo is a strong thing. I may be incorrect here, but the numbers indicated in the poll would lead me to believe that people are either completely ignoring the relevant rules posted in the OP in favor of the status quo, or have simply decided not to investigate said rules for the same reason. There is a clear conflict of rules posted in the rules citations of post #1.

No one likes to hear, "Hey, I think 99% of games have been playing this wrong." Hearing that would fundamentally alter the way such models effect gameplay, and many people have spent countless hours working out their strategies within the constraints of the current rulesets. Furthermore, many people likely don't even bother researching, and simply vote for the way it's been played most widely.

I've no doubt that it is played primarily as 4+. But the rules citations show that there is definitely a strong argument for playing it as 3+ as well. I can't say who is correct, but if GW intended the ADL to be 4+, I wonder what that 3+ section in the cover rules is for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Yayula wrote:

It is just the name of the FoC section where you can purchase the ADL, that doesn't mean anything you pick will be classified as a fortification.

Actually, it does. There are 6 categories of things you can purchase for your army: HQs, Troops, Elites, Fast Attacks, Heavy Supports, and Fortifications.

Anything you pick in that slot counts as that during the game. That's why various abilities that allow you to purchase non-troops as troops make those units scoring. Because they are considered the "troop" type thereafter. Heavy Support, and the "Heavy" unit type are not synonymous. They are two different things with two different names and classifications. Just like a Rockstar Groupie is not a Rockstar.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I can't say who is correct, but if GW intended the ADL to be 4+, I wonder what that 3+ section in the cover rules is for.

As you were told in the other thread, if you're obstructed by 25% from a bastion, it's 3+ cover.

You're creating a conflict in the rules where there isn't one.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I can't say who is correct, but if GW intended the ADL to be 4+, I wonder what that 3+ section in the cover rules is for.

As you were told in the other thread, if you're obstructed by 25% from a bastion, it's 3+ cover.

You're creating a conflict in the rules where there isn't one.

I don't believe so. I certainly didn't write the rules or they'd be perfectly clear, so I don't think laying the responsibility of the rules conflict squarely on my shoulders is quite fair.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I can't say who is correct, but if GW intended the ADL to be 4+, I wonder what that 3+ section in the cover rules is for.

As you were told in the other thread, if you're obstructed by 25% from a bastion, it's 3+ cover.

You're creating a conflict in the rules where there isn't one.

I don't believe so. I certainly didn't write the rules or they'd be perfectly clear, so I don't think laying the responsibility of the rules conflict squarely on my shoulders is quite fair.

The problem is that the rules (in this case) are clear and you've invented a situation you think makes them unclear. It doesn't, you just choose to read them that way.

90+% is obviously not high enough to convince people that they might actually be wrong?

seriously if you are still argueing the 3+ save, on a "fortification" that specifically says in its own special rules it grants a 4+, after being told multiple times my the vast majority of people its not so, when a 4+ aegis is already the cats @$$, and a 3+ is broken and very much not the rules.

despite swarms being "fast attack" they still dont score in missions where "fast atack" scores, because that SPECIFIC fast attack choice has a special rule, associated with its type, that modifys the GENERAL rule enabling fast attack to score.

just like the specific fortification rules for aegis, state it is a defence line that grans 4+ cover, overiding the general rule for fortifications to grant 3+

easysauce wrote:
90+% is obviously not high enough to convince people that they might actually be wrong?

Oh, excuse me. I didn't know we were practicing correctness by majority here. The next time I meet 30 guys who tell me 2+2=8, I'll keep that in mind.

easysauce wrote:
seriously if you are still argueing the 3+ save, on a "fortification" that specifically says in its own special rules it grants a 4+

It doesn't say that in it's "special rules". It doesn't have any said special rules. It has a terrain type, that is all. It also is defined as a fortification. As a matter of fact, the word fortification is about 20 times the size of the terrain type on the same page, so by your above "majority wins" logic, shouldn't the bigger words be more important?

easysauce wrote:
just like the specific fortification rules for aegis, state it is a defence line that grans 4+ cover, overiding the general rule for fortifications to grant 3+

Both the FoC rules that define the ADL as a fortification, and the terrain type rules are in sections of the book defined as "Advanced" rules. There is no such thing as "General vs. Specific". It's "Basic vs. Advanced", and both rules are in the advanced sections of the BRB.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
>90% say 4+. I don't think we could get that kind of consensus that 2+2=4.

The status quo is a strong thing. I may be incorrect here, but the numbers indicated in the poll would lead me to believe that people are either completely ignoring the relevant rules posted in the OP in favor of the status quo, or have simply decided not to investigate said rules for the same reason.

Did you seriously just post "I don't like the results, so I'm claiming it's all lies."?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
>90% say 4+. I don't think we could get that kind of consensus that 2+2=4.

The status quo is a strong thing. I may be incorrect here, but the numbers indicated in the poll would lead me to believe that people are either completely ignoring the relevant rules posted in the OP in favor of the status quo, or have simply decided not to investigate said rules for the same reason.

Did you seriously just post "I don't like the results, so I'm claiming it's all lies."?

No, it has nothing to do with lies or truths. That poll is HYWPI.

As for the Status Quo statement, I'm just pointing out that in any instance where 90%+ of a group of people even MIGHT be wrong(not saying they are, just maybe), it is difficult to make them consider changing their position. See WW2, or the American Civil War, or any other situation where clear violations of human rights were morally wrong, yet the status quo was strong enough to convince entire populations of the worthiness of their cause. So much so that thousands were willing to fight and die for the belief that their position was correct.

If, considering this, you don't feel that the status quo is a strong influence on majority opinion, then there is really very little for you and I to talk about. I doubt either of us would find the conversation enriching.

Henrythesecond wrote:


No, no, Peregrine. You see, it'll NEVER be 'End of Discussion' on the topic, and the rules are NOT 'perfectly clear'. And that is simply because there is seemingly a different interpretation. Rightly or wrongly, for good or bad, with whatever motivation, other folk have a different opinion.

And no matter how contrived and foolish it is to consider giving the Aegis Defence Line a 3+ Cover Save, we must not deny individuals the right to have their voice heard. For that way lies darkness, my friend.

The rules are very explicit, actually.

The fact that there is a different interpretation is irrelevant. The only actual proponent was proven wrong many times, and refused to believe it so.

Did you know Ancient Astronauts is a theory? Its proponents are laughed out of arguments. They aren't right simply because they believe something that everyone else disagrees with. Until GW releases something saying "Ignore every section of the fortification rules, and use a 3+ save" this will not be the case.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
>90% say 4+. I don't think we could get that kind of consensus that 2+2=4.

The status quo is a strong thing. I may be incorrect here, but the numbers indicated in the poll would lead me to believe that people are either completely ignoring the relevant rules posted in the OP in favor of the status quo, or have simply decided not to investigate said rules for the same reason.

Did you seriously just post "I don't like the results, so I'm claiming it's all lies."?

I read it as "I don't like the results, so I'm going to take that as if no one knew what they were voting for. Clearly the results otherwise would have been in my favour."

And the next time I find 40 people that clearly haven't banded together just to mess with me that tell me 2+2=8, while a much smaller minority tells me they are wrong, I'm sure as hell gonna sit down and have a think.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
See WW2

BOOM! Page one reference to Hitler (or hinting to it atleast)
This thread is on a roll!

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:



No, it has nothing to do with lies or truths. That poll is HYWPI.

As for the Status Quo statement, I'm just pointing out that in any instance where 90%+ of a group of people even MIGHT be wrong(not saying they are, just maybe), it is difficult to make them consider changing their position. See WW2, or the American Civil War, or any other situation where clear violations of human rights were morally wrong, yet the status quo was strong enough to convince entire populations of the worthiness of their cause. So much so that thousands were willing to fight and die for the belief that their position was correct.

If, considering this, you don't feel that the status quo is a strong influence on majority opinion, then there is really very little for you and I to talk about. I doubt either of us would find the conversation enriching.

This is not an ethics argument. Ethicists are allowed to debate what is right and wrong because there is grey area. Their problems were not necessarily of human origin (well of course they are, but not coming from a single, human writer). Whereas the rules for 40k have an officiating body that is allowed to overrule our opinions. This is enough to say that you're making an equivocation.

Effectively you're saying

An Ethics argument has grey areas, yet status quo forces an opinion on people.
If an ethics argument has grey areas then a ruleset has grey areas.
What has grey areas can never have true, clean-cut answers.
Therefore there can be no correct answer.

Is that what you're trying to say? because, short of you simply coming close to invoking godwin's law, this is what I'm hearing.

It's the same as saying this:

A feather is light.
what is dark cannot be light
Therefore a feather cannot be dark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

And the next time I find 40 people that clearly haven't banded together just to mess with me that tell me 2+2=8, while a much smaller minority tells me they are wrong, I'm sure as hell gonna sit down and have a think.

I would assert that 2+2 is in fact 7.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Henrythesecond wrote:


No, no, Peregrine. You see, it'll NEVER be 'End of Discussion' on the topic, and the rules are NOT 'perfectly clear'. And that is simply because there is seemingly a different interpretation. Rightly or wrongly, for good or bad, with whatever motivation, other folk have a different opinion.

And no matter how contrived and foolish it is to consider giving the Aegis Defence Line a 3+ Cover Save, we must not deny individuals the right to have their voice heard. For that way lies darkness, my friend.

The rules are very explicit, actually.

The fact that there is a different interpretation is irrelevant. The only actual proponent was proven wrong many times, and refused to believe it so.

Did you know Ancient Astronauts is a theory? Its proponents are laughed out of arguments. They aren't right simply because they believe something that everyone else disagrees with. Until GW releases something saying "Ignore every section of the fortification rules, and use a 3+ save" this will not be the case.

I'm not going to attempt to have an intelligent debate with you, because you turn every debate into a slanderfest full of half-truths and insults. Good day sir.

PS: And to pre-respond to any notion you might have that refusal to argue with you is concession, no, it isn't. Refusing to engage in a debate with someone who posits that the sky is purple doesn't make the sky purple.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
There is no such thing as "General vs. Specific". It's "Basic vs. Advanced", and both rules are in the advanced sections of the BRB.

It's just basic use of the language. If you have a broad statement and a second statement saying "actually, this one works differently" then the specific takes priority over the general. If I say both "I hate seafood" and "I love shrimp" it's completely unambiguous that shrimp are a special case of seafood that violates the general rule and I'd be entirely justified in calling you a moron if you started arguing that I must hate shrimp because I said I hate seafood.

With the ADL it's the same: the general rule is a 3+ cover save, the ADL explicitly says that it works differently and gives a 4+ cover save.

The problem with this argument (and most every argument on here) is that we are discussing the rules on a web forum with no stakes, no risks, and no reason to concede. If someone were actually playing a game and this came up, they'd have to settle it quickly or else the game would grind to a halt. Here, though, we have no reputations of sportsmanship to uphold, no reason to come to a decision, and nothing to lose. What's the worst that could happen? The thread gets locked? (Again?)
In other words, nobody is going to get anywhere with this because nobody has a reason to concede or admit fault.

 Peregrine wrote:

With the ADL it's the same: the general rule is a 3+ cover save, the ADL explicitly says that it works differently and gives a 4+ cover save.

The ADL doesn't explicitly say it gets a 4+ cover save. It has a terrain type. Terrain type rules are generic, cover many different pieces of terrain, and offer more rules than simply cover save. I have 15 pieces of terrain that are "defence lines", but only 1 that is an "Aegis Defense Line". It is my position that the ADL IS a defense line, but is a SPECIFIC type of defense line that is also a fortification, as defined in several other locations in the book.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

With the ADL it's the same: the general rule is a 3+ cover save, the ADL explicitly says that it works differently and gives a 4+ cover save.

The ADL doesn't explicitly say it gets a 4+ cover save. It has a terrain type. Terrain type rules are generic, cover many different pieces of terrain, and offer more rules than simply cover save. I have 15 pieces of terrain that are "defence lines", but only 1 that is an "Aegis Defense Line". It is my position that the ADL IS a defense line, but is a SPECIFIC type of defense line that is also a fortification, as defined in several other locations in the book.

Except that is incorrect as the rules for every fortification's cover save is less specific than the ADL terrain type.

Here is why:

A fortification, that is a wall, has a 3+ cover save.

an ADL is a barricade/defense line (Battlefield Debris) and as such follows the rules for walls which give a 4+ cover save.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I'm not going to attempt to have an intelligent debate with you, because you turn every debate into a slanderfest full of half-truths and insults. Good day sir.

PS: And to pre-respond to any notion you might have that refusal to argue with you is concession, no, it isn't. Refusing to engage in a debate with someone who posits that the sky is purple doesn't make the sky purple.

Please, stop telling me I’m slandering and insulting you, then proceed call me unintelligent. It does not do your case any good.

Refusing to have a debate with me is not the same as ignoring points that debunk the premises of your arguments. It is one thing to have a valid argument, quite another to have a sound one. Your arguments are valid, but they pale in the face of controversy. There is evidence to the contrary that stops many of your premises from being true that you simply ignore, telling me that “You’re right and don’t want to engage in a debate.”
You are refusing to engage in argument, rather sticking to assertions without supporting your premises for them.Argument is not in the conclusion, we can agree that your arguments are valid. I simply cannot agree that they are sound, as I'm yet to see undebunkable evidence that agrees with you.

Also, the sky can be purple. This is my home (Brisbane) at sunset.

http://nickevansphoto.com/2011/nice-sunset-brisbane/

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

With the ADL it's the same: the general rule is a 3+ cover save, the ADL explicitly says that it works differently and gives a 4+ cover save.

The ADL doesn't explicitly say it gets a 4+ cover save. It has a terrain type. Terrain type rules are generic, cover many different pieces of terrain, and offer more rules than simply cover save. I have 15 pieces of terrain that are "defence lines", but only 1 that is an "Aegis Defense Line". It is my position that the ADL IS a defense line, but is a SPECIFIC type of defense line that is also a fortification, as defined in several other locations in the book.

Except that is incorrect as the rules for every fortification's cover save is less specific than the ADL terrain type.

Here is why:

A fortification, that is a wall, has a 3+ cover save.

an ADL is a barricade/defense line (Battlefield Debris) and as such follows the rules for walls which give a 4+ cover save.

I disagree. I think an ADL is a more specific type of defense line. But we both know we're not going to change the other's opinion. I'd love for this to get FAQed. Not because I think the FAQ would support my position, but because I just like rules where there is no debate to be had at all.

Waaaghpower wrote:
The problem with this argument (and most every argument on here) is that we are discussing the rules on a web forum with no stakes, no risks, and no reason to concede. If someone were actually playing a game and this came up, they'd have to settle it quickly or else the game would grind to a halt. Here, though, we have no reputations of sportsmanship to uphold, no reason to come to a decision, and nothing to lose. What's the worst that could happen? The thread gets locked? (Again?)
In other words, nobody is going to get anywhere with this because nobody has a reason to concede or admit fault.

Yes, people on the internet are like that?

I'm sure that in a game situation, Betray will concede to play it 4+. As he's said, he doesn't use it. I don't know why he's so invested in this argument that continually gets debunked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I disagree. I think an ADL is a more specific type of defense line. But we both know we're not going to change the other's opinion. I'd love for this to get FAQed. Not because I think the FAQ would support my position, but because I just like rules where there is no debate to be had at all.

Now, the part in bold first, Betray:

You say this and that's fine. But it's not an argument, it's a conclusion. The evidence does not support this conclusion and the majority (thankyou to solo for providing a poll for this) do not agree with you.

The most obvious debunk is that the most specific Defense line provides a 4+ save with a 2+ save on gtg

While you may be correct that the status quo is not always correct (one would only have to look at darwinian evolution to see this), I do re-assert that in this case, you do yourself no favours by going against it.

Now, the other bit:

I respect this. If they were to FAQ it and say that it was, in fact, a 3+ I would not argue for 4+. I would continue to believe that GW makes some very silly decisions, but I accept their judgement as final.

He just wants to feel special, like he found something and corrected the world, and thus change his name to CorrectedTheWorld.

tgf wrote:
He just wants to feel special, like he found something and corrected the world, and thus change his name to CorrectedTheWorld.

That is every scientists dream.

I do believe that he genuinely believes that this is true and I can respect his solidarity, but even if he is correct in the eyes of GW, right now he has to concede to HYWPI. If you have these arguments with everyone, you only make enemies for yourself.

 Jimsolo wrote:
EDIT: This isn't intended to be a thread for a rules discussion.

Well, that went well...

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Please, stop telling me I’m slandering and insulting you

This is a simple fix. Stop posting slander and insults. Half the things you posted about the previous discussion on this were complete falsehoods. I wasn't the SOLE person arguing this issue. And it's easy to see why those who might have spoke up with their opinions would avoid doing so when they see how you and 2 others in that thread react to someone arguing a point of contention. Generally people don't want to post an opinion when they know that opinion will be met with hostility, attempted humiliation, and direct insults to their intelligence and/or character. I'm not avoiding debating with you because you have "debunked" anything. The only thing you ever did was repost a section of my original post, which created the point of contention to begin with. That post was made BECAUSE there is conflict in the rules. I knew the conflict was there when I posted it, and it is WHY I posted it. Restating my own citations isn't some otherworldly revelation that should erase all doubt.

Both you, and Grendel's primary mode of arguing was to basically say, "You're wrong, because I'm ignoring the other 4 rules citations you posted in favor of the 1 citation on page 114". And you just spammed it over and over again to bloat the thread with posts on how the position of seeing 3+ as a relevent argument was completely incorrect with no basis in the rules, which is completely not the case. To further compound the issue, you both threw around insults and condescension as if you were right by holy decree. I'm not interested in having such debates. Debates solely on the merit of an argument, sure. Debates based around how clever we can be while making veiled insinuations at each other that the other is a moron? No thanks, there are better uses of my time.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

This is a simple fix. Stop posting slander and insults. Half the things you posted about the previous discussion on this were complete falsehoods. I wasn't the SOLE person arguing this issue. And it's easy to see why those who might have spoke up with their opinions would avoid doing so when they see how you and 2 others in that thread react to someone arguing a point of contention.

IT is better to argue against a point of contention, than to simply ignore it. You had accomplished nothing by ignoring the fortification rules, as written, yet you ignored the people who were for those rules, as written?

You weren't the sole person arguing against this issue. You weren't trying to argue against the issues presented at all.

Furthermore, we refused to see the relevance in the other rules cited. The rules to argue about were found on page 114 and the rules that it directed you to. These were the most specific rules, so the most relevant.

Finally, your edit removed vital information to context. Expressly, you ignoring the fact that you've called me stupid, or implied I'm unintelligible more than three times. I would say, that I am not the one who is ignoring his misdoings.

I noticed you removed your comment refering to me as a goblin. Smooth.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Both you, and Grendel's primary mode of arguing was to basically say, "You're wrong, because I'm ignoring the other 4 rules citations you posted in favor of the 1 citation on page 114".

Now that is a straight up lie.
You complain people insult you? Pot kettle black?
I posted rules and page references, I'd appreciate the same courtesy, not these personal attacks. I enjoy rules debates, I enjoyed the last one. I don't appreciate these falsehoods against me, and would like an apology please.
Check the last thread as to what I posted, before casting stones.

On a relevant note, I think the OP got the numbers he was after. This isn't suppose to be a rules debate. Suggest the thread is closed now.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

I do believe that he genuinely believes that this is true and I can respect his solidarity, but even if he is correct in the eyes of GW, right now he has to concede to HYWPI. If you have these arguments with everyone, you only make enemies for yourself.

I have no problem with HYWPI. My original intention was only to point out that there are rules that muddy the waters, and that it is very possible that the current state of being, with regard to how the ADL is used, could be incorrect.

Also, I don't feel like all of your arguments are without merit, but I really don't want to argue with someone who posts 30 posts an hour and easily resorts to condescension and insults. It's not worth my time. No offense, I understand that many people don't think manners are important on the internet. I'm not one of those people, and I don't like how I react when I react to those people, because I get drawn in to the condescension/insult game. I'm not here to call people idiots in the most clever way possible. I'm here to help, and be helped in clarifying rules with rules citations from our source material.

So, to any I have been condescending to in this thread, I appologize. Most likely, it was a response to whatever rude or presumptuous thing was said to begin with, but that doesn't make me any more right for getting drawn into the petty bickering than those of you who would instigate such responses to begin with. I've said my peace, and will now bow out of this thread with as much grace as I can muster. If anyone is really interested in my opinion, or somehow thinks they have a rule we missed, feel free to PM me.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Also, I don't feel like all of your arguments are without merit, but I really don't want to argue with someone who posts 30 posts an hour and easily resorts to condescension and insults. It's not worth my time. No offense, I understand that many people don't think manners are important on the internet. I'm not one of those people, and I don't like how I react when I react to those people, because I get drawn in to the condescension/insult game. I'm not here to call people idiots in the most clever way possible. I'm here to help, and be helped in clarifying rules with rules citations from our source material.

So, to any I have been condescending to in this thread, I appologize. Most likely, it was a response to whatever rude or presumptuous thing was said to begin with, but that doesn't make me any more right for getting drawn into the petty bickering than those of you who would instigate such responses to begin with. I've said my peace, and will now bow out of this thread with as much grace as I can muster. If anyone is really interested in my opinion, or somehow thinks they have a rule we missed, feel free to PM me.

You are guilty of every crime against manners that I am. That is no falsehood. I just have the solidarity to leave them in place, once I've said them.

If you don't feel all my arguments are without merit, then you must attempt to debunk them. if you then refuse to debunk them, you are allowing my assertions to go uncontested. You not contesting them may not make them true, but that they go uncontested does. If I saw "You shot the sherif" and you don't try to debunk my assertion, you are leaving me to be correct. This is not the same as me being correct, but it does not help your case at all.

Reading the rest, you're probably right to do so. If I am later convinced that you are correct, then I will be sure to concede to you. Right now, I can't see it, however.

The more specific rules state it is a 4+, as was proven in the other thread.

The ruels citations posted by Betray were not valid, for reasons LONG explained in the other thread, and so are irrelevant.

"Fortification" the FOC slot and "fortification" the general description are two different things.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

You are guilty of every crime against manners that I am. That is no falsehood. I just have the solidarity to leave them in place, once I've said them.

Now you're insinuating that I edit my posts to remove snarky comments? I don't. Look back over this thread. Example below. Look, this is really tiresome. Having to respond to things like this that are simply untrue insinuations is precisely the reason I said I don't want to debate with you. It's exhausting. I own up to it when I call someone an idiot, veiled or otherwise, and I don't go back and edit my comments to remove such things. As below, the majority of my snarkiness is in response to juvenile thinking or rude statements made to begin with. I responded to your PM, outlining exactly why I don't want to continue this. Arguing about 5 things I never said because people misquote me or make connections that don't exist is not at all interesting to me, and is a complete waste of my time. Straw man arguments win. Bravo.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

easysauce wrote:
90+% is obviously not high enough to convince people that they might actually be wrong?

Oh, excuse me. I didn't know we were practicing correctness by majority here. The next time I meet 30 guys who tell me 2+2=8, I'll keep that in mind.

"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious."

I am not a fan of group think or majority correctness, see things like global warming/cooling, socialism/capitalism to see where group think has replaced scientific method to come to a conclusion. Yes concensus does not make correctness. However when interpruting language, ambigous langage, and rules where agreement is required a majority is correct, and if less than 10% come to an interprutation which is what your are doing, you are wrong. The very nature of interprutation is majority opinion is correct.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious."

Beautifully ambiguous comment. It made me laugh. Since you haven't really posted your position in this thread as far as I recall, the comment is ambiguous enough to not be directed at any one person, but almost certainly is. Probably towards me, but I appreciate the artful delivery nonetheless, so I'll just assume you're talking about someone else.

The funniest part about this comment, is that I totally relate to the feeling put forth in it, quite often. Perhaps we're all just pigeons here, crapping on each other's boards and all acting like we've won.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgf wrote:
I am not a fan of group think or majority correctness, see things like global warming/cooling, socialism/capitalism to see where group think has replaced scientific method to come to a conclusion. Yes concensus does not make correctness. However when interpruting language, ambigous langage, and rules where agreement is required a majority is correct, and if less than 10% come to an interprutation which is what your are doing, you are wrong. The very nature of interprutation is majority opinion is correct.

Laws are rules. Laws and social policy are what I was referring to when I referenced WW2 and the American Civil war. The rules for our toy soldiers draw a direct parallel to such laws, albeit on a much smaller, much less important scale.

I was the second to reply actually if you want to know my views on the topic.

Aaah, not this gak again.
The "3+ arguments" were destroyed in that other thread but the guy kept ignoring them and repeated the same over and over.

It's probably going to happen here too, so I guess we'll just have to warn a moderator in advance.

Kangodo wrote:
The "3+ arguments" were destroyed in that other thread but the guy kept ignoring them and repeated the same over and over.

This is the type of useless post that created the problem in the first thread. People posting that an argument has been lost when there is clearly still contention. Me saying, I win, you lose, doesn't make it so.

But just in case the rules of normal interaction are different here, and I'm incorrect....I win, you lose.

There's only contention because people refuse to accept rules quotes.

Though I have never played against some one claiming that the ADL grants 3+ cover save, I have had a player try and explain to me that regardless of how little a model is obscured (or not obscured at all) they still benefit from the cover save. This was after a flyer was shooting at an infantry unit elevated behind the ADL. Said flyer could clearly draw LOS to the entire model. I am not sure if this is applicable to the thread but models still have to be 25 percent obscured to receive that cover save correct?

Cmdr Hindsight wrote:
Though I have never played against some one claiming that the ADL grants 3+ cover save, I have had a player try and explain to me that regardless of how little a model is obscured (or not obscured at all) they still benefit from the cover save. This was after a flyer was shooting at an infantry unit behind the ADL and elevated. Said flyer could clearly draw LOS to the entire model. I am not sure if this is applicable to the thread but models still have to be 25 percent obscured to receive that cover save correct?

Yes, so far as I know.

Could we please refrain from attacks on one another, or further discussions of the rules?

I feel I've been very reasonable in my creation of this thread. A poll never killed anyone, and it never hurts to have numbers to back up your argument (no matter which side you come down on!). While I appreciate that people feels strongly about this, or maligned in some fashion, the sole purpose of this thread is to gather numerical data, not to convince anyone of your feelings, beliefs, or of the rightness of your interpretations.

Rehashing the same arguments we have already had is a waste of time. Arguing over who is the worst arguer is likewise a waste of time. An argument is completely, absolutely pointless if you do not respect the other person's position enough to be willing to allow them to change your mind.

I created this thread in order to get some numbers to see how big the sides were on this issue. That is the sole purpose of this thread. I am asking you as a personal kindness to vote if you have not already. Following that, if you do not have anything that is pleasant (or completely new and fresh) to add to this discussion, please just close the window. I am not attacking anyone, nor am I slandering anyone's opinion, belief, character, or interpretation. Please be kind enough to moderate your behavior in such a fashion that my thread will not be locked. I haven't done anything to any of you, to my knowledge. Please, let's all just be civil.

Thank you, and good day.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Could we please refrain from attacks on one another, or further discussions of the rules?

I feel I've been very reasonable in my creation of this thread. A poll never killed anyone, and it never hurts to have numbers to back up your argument (no matter which side you come down on!). While I appreciate that people feels strongly about this, or maligned in some fashion, the sole purpose of this thread is to gather numerical data, not to convince anyone of your feelings, beliefs, or of the rightness of your interpretations.

I created this thread in order to get some numbers to see how big the sides were on this issue. That is the sole purpose of this thread. I am asking you as a personal kindness to vote if you have not already.

Thank you, and good day.

I sent a message to Yakface just after the last thread got locked, and I asked him to create a poll on how people Play the ADL

I aksed him to create the poll instead of doing it myself, as his rules HWIPI polls are very in depth and are not biased towards one side or the other. His poll format is excellent.

Here was my question to him and his response.

yakface wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Hey Yak, I was wondering, since the recent thread got locked, how people on Dakka play the cover saves for the ADL.

Do most people play it as a 3+ or a 4+?

Can you make a poll, similar to the other YMDC polls so we can get a sense of who plays it as what?

Basically a thread like this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/519543.page But for ADL and cover saves. Basically a poll to see what people in this thread play it as: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/520287.page

Thank you

-DR.

IMHO, I think its kind of a senseless poll. I can tell you without hesitation that 95%+ play that the ADL is a 4+ save. But if you want to do it, then yeah, write it up and I'll post it.

A friendly reminder from the Moderation team: any time you find your self reaching for comparisons to human rights violations or other atrocities when discussing your toy soldier hobby, you are likely over-invested in the conversation, and need to step back.

Before bad things happen to your posting privileges.

Cmdr Hindsight wrote:
Though I have never played against some one claiming that the ADL grants 3+ cover save, I have had a player try and explain to me that regardless of how little a model is obscured (or not obscured at all) they still benefit from the cover save. This was after a flyer was shooting at an infantry unit elevated behind the ADL. Said flyer could clearly draw LOS to the entire model. I am not sure if this is applicable to the thread but models still have to be 25 percent obscured to receive that cover save correct?

This is one of my favorite tricks to snipe devastators behind an ADL. Typically your opponent will put boltguns against the ADL and heavies in the back rank. I will use the max cover save of a X+ rule to force him to force him to pick off his heavy weapons since cover saves are done on a per model basis. I almost always get an argument if its the first time it has happened to them. I have the pages memorized it comes up so much. Determing Cover Saves and Focus Fire on page 18. The interesting thing is for focus fire to work it doesn't even require you use your cover save you just calculate it. You can still use your armor save through.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
When I play and ADL this is typically how I deploy it because of my shenanigans with focus fire.

________
|
|____
|
|____

yakface wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Hey Yak, I was wondering, since the recent thread got locked, how people on Dakka play the cover saves for the ADL.

Do most people play it as a 3+ or a 4+?

Can you make a poll, similar to the other YMDC polls so we can get a sense of who plays it as what?

IMHO, I think its kind of a senseless poll. I can tell you without hesitation that 95%+ play that the ADL is a 4+ save. But if you want to do it, then yeah, write it up and I'll post it.

LOL ! Actually, Yakface it's only 91%.

I would like to quote the following from a previous thread titled General vs Specific.

" Actually the book does define which rules are basic rules, per page 7, the rules found between 10 and 31 are basic rules every other rule in the book is an advanced rule. They then go on to say an advanced rule will override a basic rule. There is no rule for advanced vs advanced. " - Gravmyr

The rules referring to fortifications being a 3+ are part of the basic rules which are specifically overwritten by later advanced rules in the book.

ADL should be played as a 4+ cover save.

Thank you From, for providing new information. I had not seen the quote you provided from Gravmyr before.

 Grugknuckle wrote:
LOL ! Actually, Yakface it's only 91%.

The current poll is asking what people think it should be, not how they play it.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I play it as a 4+ beccause if you look on rules for an Aegis Defence Line on page 114 it says

"Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris: (Defence lines).

So you go to the rules for Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) on page 104

"Defence lines 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 covers saver rather than +l"

And right there on the same page it gives you the barricades and walls rules which state

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

The people claiming it's a 3+ are quoting page 18 which gives you the basic cover chart which state

"Fortifications 3+"

and they'd be right if an ADL stated "Terrain Type: Fortifications", but it doesn't, so they're not. Logic is a wonderful thing.

Agreed, but I would also add the cover chart is meant as a series of examples and not a comprehensive list. The use of 'fortification' on it is misleading as I do not believe they meant anything that falls under the fortification slot of a FAC. In my opinion a defense line is more like a ruined fortification and all the stuff you pointed out tends to support my opinion.

Hey guys, this should solve it...

If the aegis was giving you a 3+ cover save, then you could go to ground and have a 1+ cover save...which you cant do.

That ends it.

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey guys, this should solve it...

If the aegis was giving you a 3+ cover save, then you could go to ground and have a 1+ cover save...which you cant do.

That ends it.

if you don't want to consider the ADL a defense line/wall Then you would only get a +1 to your cover save from going to ground.

If you want the +2 then you have to accept that it is a wall, defense line ie 4+ cover to start +2 to go to ground.

and anything that modifies to a 1+ save is negated by the maximum save rule on pg 19.

sirlynchmob wrote:

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey guys, this should solve it...

If the aegis was giving you a 3+ cover save, then you could go to ground and have a 1+ cover save...which you cant do.

That ends it.

if you don't want to consider the ADL a defense line/wall Then you would only get a +1 to your cover save from going to ground.

If you want the +2 then you have to accept that it is a wall, defense line ie 4+ cover to start +2 to go to ground.

and anything that modifies to a 1+ save is negated by the maximum save rule on pg 19.

Actually.. if I consider it a purpose built fortification which grants a 3+ cover save and not a defense line/wall.. i could still go to ground behind it and get a 2+ cover save..

 Miri wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey guys, this should solve it...

If the aegis was giving you a 3+ cover save, then you could go to ground and have a 1+ cover save...which you cant do.

That ends it.

if you don't want to consider the ADL a defense line/wall Then you would only get a +1 to your cover save from going to ground.

If you want the +2 then you have to accept that it is a wall, defense line ie 4+ cover to start +2 to go to ground.

and anything that modifies to a 1+ save is negated by the maximum save rule on pg 19.

Actually.. if I consider it a purpose built fortification which grants a 3+ cover save and not a defense line/wall.. i could still go to ground behind it and get a 2+ cover save..

nope, you only get the 2+ cover for going to ground behind a battlefield debris defense line, which follows all the rules for barracades and walls (4+ cover) If you want to claim the ADL is a purpose built fortification than you don't get the 2+ GTG bonus.

sirlynchmob wrote:
nope, you only get the 2+ cover for going to ground behind a battlefield debris defense line, which follows all the rules for barracades and walls (4+ cover) If you want to claim the ADL is a purpose built fortification than you don't get the 2+ GTG bonus.

But you still get a +1 bonus from normal GTG, which, added to the supposed 3+ starting cover save, gets you a 2+ save. Since a 2+ cover save is the highest you can get it doesn't matter if you don't have the +2 bonus.

Not that it matters because the rules explicitly state that the ADL gives a 4+ cover save.

Actually Jim that rules quote was given in the other thred, and it was still roundly ignored by the 3+ proponents, like esentially every other rules quote that demolished the argument

Betray - it isnt "im right, youre wrong" it is "we're right because we provided X, Y, Z proof, and you were unable to counter said proof"

Cmdr Hindsight wrote:
Though I have never played against some one claiming that the ADL grants 3+ cover save, I have had a player try and explain to me that regardless of how little a model is obscured (or not obscured at all) they still benefit from the cover save. This was after a flyer was shooting at an infantry unit elevated behind the ADL. Said flyer could clearly draw LOS to the entire model. I am not sure if this is applicable to the thread but models still have to be 25 percent obscured to receive that cover save correct?

yes. It is in no way but the deployment different from any other battlefield debris.
(oh, and the +2 to cover save when dropping to the ground behind it. So 2 exceptions.)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
we're right because we provided X, Y, Z proof, and you were unable to counter said proof"

Oh, really? I posted the rules several times, and you never disproved them. It wasn't necessary for me to post them more, just to enter into a "Yes huh, nuh uh" argument.

The Rules 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.

These rules clearly state that the Aegis Defense Line is a Fortification, and purpose-built. It is defined thusly in advanced rules. Purpose built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. It is also terrain type: defense lines, which confer a 4+ cover save. Both of these are permissions. No where in the rules does it say that a piece of terrain can only provide a single cover save. When there are 2 rules, and it is possible to apply both of them, you're supposed to apply both. So in the most literal interpretation of the rules, the ADL would provide both a 4+ and 3+ cover save. And the rules for saves tell us to use the best one available.

No, actually. It states it is a "Fortification", not a "fortification"

You are confusing that the FOC slot "Fortification" is a proper noun, and therefore not the same as a "fortification" which is referred to elsewhere.

Of course, you were told, and shown all of this and more previously, and took no notice then - so this is more for those who think you might actually have a rules based argument, when you dont.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
LOL ! Actually, Yakface it's only 91%.

The current poll is asking what people think it should be, not how they play it.

And of course I was just trying to introduce a little levity to diffuse the tension.

This not a scientific poll, and obviously Yak was just estimating anyway.

ADL: Fortification (Battlefield Debris: Defense line)
Fortification: 3+
Defense Line: 4+

Guess what wins.

The (Battlefield Debris: Defense line) Wins, as that is the more specific rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, actually. It states it is a "Fortification", not a "fortification"

It was capitalized because it was at the beginning of the sentence, not because it's some magically different word. There is no difference between Fortification and fortification.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The (Battlefield Debris: Defense line) Wins, as that is the more specific rule.

There is no "General vs. Specific" rule. Both rules apply in cases where they may do so. This is such a case. If anyone has evidence showing that both rules can't be in effect simultaneously, present it.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The (Battlefield Debris: Defense line) Wins, as that is the more specific rule.

There is no "General vs. Specific" rule. Both rules apply in cases where they may do so. This is such a case. If anyone has evidence showing that both rules can't be in effect simultaneously, present it.

There's no rule in Rulebook, but it's a fundamental part of the English Language. You can ignore it as much as you can ignore grammar (although it seems Grammer is mostly ignored these days it seems).

If I say "Everyone can have a beer, except those underage" there's an example of General Vs. Specific.
If we ignore this fundamental part of the Language, as you suggest, you'd be giving beer to children.

(Speaking of which, I'm off for a beer. Later)

I stick Plague Bearers in mine.with a herald with FnP loci manning the QG, so it does not really matter whether it is 4 or 3+, I still get the 2+ cover.

C'mon guys, we all know the rules arguments we've already been over. There's no call to be snarky to each other, either. Please, if you don't feel like you can get anywhere, then just walk away.

 Jimsolo wrote:
C'mon guys, we all know the rules arguments we've already been over. There's no call to be snarky to each other, either. Please, if you don't feel like you can get anywhere, then just walk away.

With 4k+ posts, you should know better

I don't even know what the discussion is about. 4+ as it specifically says in the silly rules.

Betray - nope, it is the Capitalised "Fortification" proper noun.

But it doesnt matter - the rules prove it is a 4+, and only ignoring the clear rules can make you think otherwise.

Okay, that's enough from both of you. Out of the thread, nosferatu1001 & BetrayTheWorld. You're off-topic.

Lets be honest, its a blatant 4+, anyone attempting to claim a 3+ from the aegis is just being so pedantic theyre probably not worth playing

Come on, now. Personal attacks on people for their opinion on this issue are neither warranted nor needed. Just as there is no call to discuss the rules issues from the original thread, there is no call to be rude to one another, or to the other side of the argument in general.

There is a difference between 'Fortification' and 'fortification'. By capitalizing the 1st letter you make it a proper noun that refers to a single thing and unique thing. Leaving the 1st letter alone it is common noun, referring to a class things. In this sense a a Fortification is something with a 3+ cover save while a fortification is a structure or type of building.

But GW does not do that with fortifications. For example pg 114 says you can take a single fortification(little 'f') for each primary detachment in your force. That is clearly referring to the FOC fortification but they felt no need to refer to it as a Fortification.

Pg 18 does not refer players to page 114. It actually sends players to page 90 for further discussion on battlefield terrain and cover saves. Its clear to me the battlefield terrain rules are used to determine cover saves and the fortification entry tells us what battle field terrain rules to use.

 DJGietzen wrote:
There is a difference between 'Fortification' and 'fortification'. By capitalizing the 1st letter you make it a proper noun that refers to a single thing and unique thing. Leaving the 1st letter alone it is common noun, referring to a class things. In this sense a a Fortification is something with a 3+ cover save while a fortification is a structure or type of building.

But GW does not do that with fortifications. For example pg 114 says you can take a single fortification(little 'f') for each primary detachment in your force. That is clearly referring to the FOC fortification but they felt no need to refer to it as a Fortification.

Pg 18 does not refer players to page 114. It actually sends players to page 90 for further discussion on battlefield terrain and cover saves. Its clear to me the battlefield terrain rules are used to determine cover saves and the fortification entry tells us what battle field terrain rules to use.

Lol.. whut? Guys.. enough with the rules arguments in this thread. The OP was asking you how you played the Aegis. He was not asking for another 10 page thread that has already been hashed out, sides set with no one giving ground. We have to wait till GW FAQs it to get a definitive answer, otherwise just keep playing it however your local store is playing it.

 Miri wrote:
We have to wait till GW FAQs it to get a definitive answer.

Yea good luck with that.

they will probably never FaQ it, unless the 10% spam GW's rules e-mail with this question.

 Miri wrote:
Lol.. whut? Guys.. enough with the rules arguments in this thread. The OP was asking you how you played the Aegis. He was not asking for another 10 page thread that has already been hashed out, sides set with no one giving ground. We have to wait till GW FAQs it to get a definitive answer, otherwise just keep playing it however your local store is playing it.

Then people shouldn't disagree with the most obvious things.

And no, this will NOT get FAQ'd.
Because FAQ'ing this would be a waste of their time.
You cannot just disagree with something this simple and say "We'll just have to wait for a FAQ!"

I'll just start a thread and claim that powerarmour gives a 2+ save.
And when people point out the profiles and the dozen clear rules on it, I will ignore it and say "We'll just have to wait for a FAQ!"

Kangodo wrote:

 Miri wrote:
Lol.. whut? Guys.. enough with the rules arguments in this thread. The OP was asking you how you played the Aegis. He was not asking for another 10 page thread that has already been hashed out, sides set with no one giving ground. We have to wait till GW FAQs it to get a definitive answer, otherwise just keep playing it however your local store is playing it.

Then people shouldn't disagree with the most obvious things.

And no, this will NOT get FAQ'd.
Because FAQ'ing this would be a waste of their time.
You cannot just disagree with something this simple and say "We'll just have to wait for a FAQ!"

I'll just start a thread and claim that powerarmour gives a 2+ save.
And when people point out the profiles and the dozen clear rules on it, I will ignore it and say "We'll just have to wait for a FAQ!"

FAQing this would be a waste of time??? While I feel the rules are clear that the ADL is a 4+ cover and not 3+ cover, this topic is much more hotly argued than say "Does Mind War allow Cover Saves?"

 Happyjew wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 Miri wrote:
Lol.. whut? Guys.. enough with the rules arguments in this thread. The OP was asking you how you played the Aegis. He was not asking for another 10 page thread that has already been hashed out, sides set with no one giving ground. We have to wait till GW FAQs it to get a definitive answer, otherwise just keep playing it however your local store is playing it.

Then people shouldn't disagree with the most obvious things.

And no, this will NOT get FAQ'd.
Because FAQ'ing this would be a waste of their time.
You cannot just disagree with something this simple and say "We'll just have to wait for a FAQ!"

I'll just start a thread and claim that powerarmour gives a 2+ save.
And when people point out the profiles and the dozen clear rules on it, I will ignore it and say "We'll just have to wait for a FAQ!"

FAQing this would be a waste of time??? While I feel the rules are clear that the ADL is a 4+ cover and not 3+ cover, this topic is much more hotly argued than say "Does Mind War allow Cover Saves?"

People tend to think FAQs should only be on things they do not see as a clear cut issue. I say FAQ anything that people argue over. It's obviously not a waste of time as one sentence in the FAQ would forestall this whole thread and the thread that preceded it.

Okay, let's send a question to the FAQ-department:
Q: Does an ADL gain a 3+ or 4+ cover save? A: 4+

*10 seconds later on Dakkadakka*
Ha! The FAQ said nothing about purpose-built fortification.

Kangodo wrote:
Okay, let's send a question to the FAQ-department:
Q: Does an ADL gain a 3+ or 4+ cover save? A: 4+

*10 seconds later on Dakkadakka*
Ha! The FAQ said nothing about purpose-built fortification.

Q: does an ADL, bought as a part of your army from the Fortifications section, gain a 3+ or 4+ save?
A: 4+

Yeah, it was really hard to incorporate the whole thing in the question instead of tilting it to be able to ridicule the idea.

 Purifier wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Okay, let's send a question to the FAQ-department:
Q: Does an ADL gain a 3+ or 4+ cover save? A: 4+

*10 seconds later on Dakkadakka*
Ha! The FAQ said nothing about purpose-built fortification.

Q: Does an ADL, bought as a part of your army from the Fortifications section, grant a 3+ or 4+ cover save?
A: 4+

Yeah, it was really hard to incorporate the whole thing in the question instead of tilting it to be able to ridicule the idea.

FTFY

 Happyjew wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Okay, let's send a question to the FAQ-department:
Q: Does an ADL gain a 3+ or 4+ cover save? A: 4+

*10 seconds later on Dakkadakka*
Ha! The FAQ said nothing about purpose-built fortification.

Q: Does an ADL, bought as a part of your army from the Fortifications section, grant a 3+ or 4+ cover save?
A: 4+

Yeah, it was really hard to incorporate the whole thing in the question instead of tilting it to be able to ridicule the idea.

FTFY

 DJGietzen wrote:
There is a difference between 'Fortification' and 'fortification'. By capitalizing the 1st letter you make it a proper noun that refers to a single thing and unique thing.

So you're saying the above, capitalized word which I've highlighted is "proper" and not just capitalized because it's at the beginning of a sentence? Of course that's not what you're saying. You use punctuation, so you're obviously not completely untrained in the English language. The capitalized version of fortification, in both cases, was at the beginning of a sentence, or was a topic heading. Both of these items(first words, and topic headings) are capitalized in every instance, no matter what word it is. Therefore, the leap of logic that it's a different word because of capitalization holds very little actual substance.



EDIT: Clarity

 Purifier wrote:

Q: does an ADL, bought as a part of your army from the Fortifications section, gain a 3+ or 4+ save?
A: 4+

Yeah, it was really hard to incorporate the whole thing in the question instead of tilting it to be able to ridicule the idea.

Hehehe But if they were that precise, it wouldn't be our beloved Games Workshop!

I think, In my humble opinion that this argument has become ridiculous, and now is just arguing for the sake of it. according to the poll 83% of all respondents are for the 4+ cover save, as am I, I have been reading this argument from day one on the first post, I just haven't said anything, but now I will, the rules show to a 4+, the 3+ is just wishful thinking and a minority/WAAC part of the poll respondents wish this where so. I think this is when people just need to gracefully back out and accept majority rule in this case, think of tournaments, you will be forced to use the commonly used 4+, I can guarantee it.

I apologize if this seams mean or inflammatory, but this is ridiculous and needs to either back up to good argument, not 'I capitalized the 'f'' and 'that starts a sentence, rawr'.

anyway my two cents, 4+ and give it up.

 chaplaincliff wrote:
according to the poll 90% of all respondents are for the 4+ cover save, as am I

FTFY

 DeathReaper wrote:

 chaplaincliff wrote:
according to the poll 90% of all respondents are for the 4+ cover save, as am I

FTFY

I did my math outside of the poll, calculating the numbers as who voted for what etc... and got the numbers I show, not sure why there was a discrepancy, but there was. Either way what i said stands and this argument is silly and has no reason to continue.