39783
Post by: theunicorn
What value of cover save do models on top of a "Shielded" landing pad get. Assuming they are next to the flaps that look like most Aegis defense line walls and/or most other tabletop walls.
The rules in Stronghold assault say "Units on top of a shielded Skyshield landing pad have a 4+ invulnerable save against shooting attacks."
Those rules do not say that this is a cover save. I ask about the cover save as there are a few armies that can boost existing cover saves.
My interpretation is that the model would get one of three choices:
Its normal save,
a cover save (subject to being buffed via psychic powers or ignored by some weapons),
or the 4+ shield save vs shooting
Feedback?
71373
Post by: Nilok
I don't think the Aegis specifies any alternative save (unless the shields are up and its a 4++) and it isn't ruins. If that is the case, your models are just obscured and you get a 5+ save.
76273
Post by: Eihnlazer
I acctually think the flaps cout as fortification save so 4+ cover.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Eihnlazer wrote:I acctually [sic] think the flaps cout [sic] as fortification save so 4+ cover.
Fortifications give a 3+ cover save, not a 4+...
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
I always found this question to be interesting for, as DeathReaper points, out the cover save is actually 3+.
The why is what makes it so very interesting, as the only reason we know this piece of information is from a single source. During the introduction to cover save section of the book it provides us with a chart designed to show us what some example cover saves look like. On this chart is an entry called fortifications and next to it is the 3+ value, the single source I mentioned earlier. Unlike all the other entries on the chart, this is not supported later on in the Rule sections detailing those terrain pieces. This side point doesn't change anything, because the table is still 'Rule as Written,' but it is something I find so very interesting. Maybe more so when you consider battlements, clearly part of the fortification, and how they only have a 4+ save.
I do accept that I could of over-looked or forgotten something, so could someone point me to where it explains the cover saves provided by fortifications without referencing this table....
82127
Post by: Uptopdownunder
The cover save chart is really only a guide.
"Before deploying their armies, it is a very good idea for players to go through all the terrain pieces on the battlefield quickly and agree what kind of cover each will offer."
Is the way to sort it out.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
JinxDragon wrote:I do accept that I could of over-looked or forgotten something, so could someone point me to where it explains the cover saves provided by fortifications without referencing this table....
That is like asking where it explains what you need to roll to wound without referencing the To Wound chart...
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
DeathReaper,
I disagree as you are taking the question out of context. Had I put forth the question of 'where can I find the cover save for Ruins without applying this chart' people can quote page 98. Similar could be supplied for other things on that chart as well, and in fact we will need to review the terrain rules in depth as part of cover saves because that is far from a comprehensive list. There is a very great difference between a chart provided to us as an example of a concept being explained at that point in time, again right after telling us where to find the more comprehensive rules, and a chart designed to be a calculation matrix that other rules rely on.
The point of my post, which I am sure you understood, was to highlight the lack of clarification on this one particular value. Had the other entries on this chart been blank as well, then I wouldn't of even thought twice on it, but they have been supported elsewhere. Yet the fortification section is void on explaining the cover saves generated by fortifications, which seems the perfect place to support not just one entry on that chart but two. Given the format used throughout the Terrain section of the book, where cover is mentioned more then the cover save section, I would expect some mention on how to calculate the fortifications/"Ruined Fortifications" cover save. A cover save that I find to be very unique, I'm hard pressed to remember anything granting lower then 4+ cover without modifiers, should warrant more then a number on a chart designed as an example of a concept.
Not to mention battlements pre-Stronghold Assault:
Part of a Fortification and the cover save is not a 3+
So now do you see why I find the correct answer of 3+ to be a curious thing?
59159
Post by: DW
I cannot check the FAQ because I'm at work (good old sonicwall), but I'm fairly certain they FAQ'd the "Fortification give a 3+ cover save" out of the rules.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
I really don't see how you find the correct answer of 3+ to be a curious thing. It says it in black and white. The rule is literally in the BRB.
59159
Post by: DW
 DeathReaper wrote:I really don't see how you find the correct answer of 3+ to be a curious thing. It says it in black and white. The rule is literally in the BRB.
Rule is literally FAQ'd and technically not in the rulebook.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
DeathReaper,
That is perfectly all right, we are all different people and what we find curious is something unique to ourselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DW,
Can you please post the Answer in question or at least tell me what page it is found on?
81346
Post by: BlackTalos
DW,
The only FAQ about this is the one mentioned above already:
Q. What is the armour value of battlements? (p95)
A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save.
And the 3+ save from fortifications still exists on p18, including with FaQs.
As to Jinx: i think we pretty much agreed in a different post that the only application of the 3+ is for a unit "behind" a bastion (so obscured by a fortification withouth being in the Fortification)
As to the OP question, another part of the FAQ is relevant:
Q. If so, do battlements count as a separate building, or is the
bastion a multi-part building? (p95)
A: Battlements are treated as being separate from the
building itself, simply acting as cover for any models on top
of the building in question – see the rules for battlements
on page 95
Does the skyshield have "cover" on top of it, do the flaps "create" battlement?
Usual battlements is a 4+, does the Skyshield not give a 4+? (but better because it's 4++?)
And as for any " LoS 25%" argument: what save do you get when 25% behind a hill, cliff (or any other "open terrain" feature)? Because Terrain Type for the Skyshield is clear 
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Hills have a defined cover save - 4+
You are obscured by somethign that is NOT battlements - as a skyshield does not say they are - so you would get a 3+ cover save
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
Skyshield isn't classified as a fortification doesn't does give 3+ cover
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So what part of the chart does it fit into?
82127
Post by: Uptopdownunder
Is there a requirement for all terrain to fit into the chart?
"The Chart" is described quite clearly as being some suggested values for some general terrain types.
81346
Post by: BlackTalos
nosferatu1001 wrote:Hills have a defined cover save - 4+
You are obscured by somethign that is NOT battlements - as a skyshield does not say they are - so you would get a 3+ cover save
I fully agree with this: if you are obscured behind the pad by one of the legs, yes.
However the OP is asking about the configuration on top giving Cover in addition to the 4++. However the rules state it is "open terrain", so unless you are within 3" of something on top (and therefore obscured by the pad itself) you only get the 4++ the "shielded" give you.
To simplify: The "wall" that moves up or down is ignored for the purpose of LoS cover saves. In the same way a Wall on the base of your model is.
If not, i will make sure my Rosarius has a "modelled" shield i can start claiming Cover saves from
82127
Post by: Uptopdownunder
I certainly do not agree that the walls of the landing pad are ignored. They are terrain and a model can be 25% obscured behind them.
It's only that the Invul usually applies anyway that it gets over looked.
If it were me the sides look most like a barricade so I'd go with 4+.
66740
Post by: Mythra
In my local store we play it as 4+ cover if they up so you can gtg for a 3+. That is why it would matter b/c of gtg. We play w True LoS so if the walls are up you can take the 4+.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
 BlackTalos wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Hills have a defined cover save - 4+
You are obscured by somethign that is NOT battlements - as a skyshield does not say they are - so you would get a 3+ cover save
I fully agree with this: if you are obscured behind the pad by one of the legs, yes.
However the OP is asking about the configuration on top giving Cover in addition to the 4++. However the rules state it is "open terrain", so unless you are within 3" of something on top (and therefore obscured by the pad itself) you only get the 4++ the "shielded" give you.
To simplify: The "wall" that moves up or down is ignored for the purpose of LoS cover saves. In the same way a Wall on the base of your model is.
If not, i will make sure my Rosarius has a "modelled" shield i can start claiming Cover saves from
Open terrain has no mvovement penalties associated with moving across it. It has no effect on whether or not it can also grant cover
39783
Post by: theunicorn
The reason I was asking is for 2 different scenarios, both involve putting a unit that increases cover saves on the platform, either a Tyranid Venomthrope, or a Eldar warlock. Either way I am looking to make a well defended firebase for artillery or support weapons.
With the flaps up at lets say a 4+ cover save, the Buffing unit moves that to a 2+ cover, if hit by an ignores cover weapon, I could still get either the units base save or the force field save of 4+.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
 Mythra wrote:In my local store we play it as 4+ cover if they up so you can gtg for a 3+. That is why it would matter b/c of gtg. We play w True LoS so if the walls are up you can take the 4+.
Why wouldn't the wall be up? Did the Skyshield get placed with the walls down, or are you changing the terrain mid game without any rules telling you to change the terrain pieces?
76273
Post by: Eihnlazer
If your a tyranid player the walls should always be up, but other races have deep strikers that benefit from the no scatter deep strike while the walls are down.
Did they remove the ability to furl and unfurl the walls? Or are you saying that you just have to state which one your doing and have no permission to physically change the state of the model, even though its extremelly apparent that the RAI is you move the walls up and down.
64368
Post by: Rorschach9
DeathReaper wrote: Mythra wrote:In my local store we play it as 4+ cover if they up so you can gtg for a 3+. That is why it would matter b/c of gtg. We play w True LoS so if the walls are up you can take the 4+.
Why wouldn't the wall be up?
Did the Skyshield get placed with the walls down, or are you changing the terrain mid game without any rules telling you to change the terrain pieces?
From the BRB, "At the beginning of the Movement phase, before rolling for reserves,
a model in base contact with a Skyshield Landing Pad can change
its configuration from shielded to unfurled (or vice versa). If there
are models from both sides in base contact with the landing pad, its
configuration cannot be changed."
Permission to change the model at the beginning of the movement phase.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Rorschach9 wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Mythra wrote:In my local store we play it as 4+ cover if they up so you can gtg for a 3+. That is why it would matter b/c of gtg. We play w True LoS so if the walls are up you can take the 4+.
Why wouldn't the wall be up? Did the Skyshield get placed with the walls down, or are you changing the terrain mid game without any rules telling you to change the terrain pieces?
From the BRB, "At the beginning of the Movement phase, before rolling for reserves, a model in base contact with a Skyshield Landing Pad can change its configuration from shielded to unfurled (or vice versa). If there are models from both sides in base contact with the landing pad, its configuration cannot be changed." Permission to change the model at the beginning of the movement phase.
No, that is not permission to change the terrain (It is not a model BTW). That gives permission to use the Unfurled or Shielded configuration rules. It does not say that you can physically manipulate and move parts of the terrain feature in question. Eihnlazer wrote:If your a tyranid player the walls should always be up, but other races have deep strikers that benefit from the no scatter deep strike while the walls are down.
That is not quite how the rules for the Skyshield work... Did they remove the ability to furl and unfurl the walls? Or are you saying that you just have to state which one your doing and have no permission to physically change the state of the model, even though its extremelly apparent that the RAI is you move the walls up and down.
The rules let you go into shielded or unfurled configuration. You were never able to move parts of the terrain feature once you place the Skyshield on the table and the game starts... You state weather you are changing the terrain to Shielded or Unfurled and have no permission to physically change the state of the terrain on the field. The Rules do not say to move parts of the terrain, so we can't.
39783
Post by: theunicorn
There is an easy fix to someone who claims that you are unable to change the configuration of the terrain piece. Deploy it with the walls up, and place a sticky note on it to remind everyone that it is either "shielded" or "unfurled"
76273
Post by: Eihnlazer
I agree with you strictly RAW that we arent given permission to change terrain after the game starts, but I also feel that RAI you can in the case of the skyshield.
Its extremely obvious honestly.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Eihnlazer wrote:I agree with you strictly RAW that we arent given permission to change terrain after the game starts, but I also feel that RAI you can in the case of the skyshield. Its extremely obvious honestly.
It is really not that obvious. Nothing in the Shielded or Unfurled configuration tell you to move the walls on the terrain piece (Indeed sometimes this is not even possible because the parts have been glued in place). I am surprised that people think they should move the terrain after it has been placed. The game rules are abstract. They have to be otherwise the Skyshield would need a ramp so that tanks that Deep Strike onto it can get down off of it. But it does not have a ramp and you just move on and off with a DT test. thus the abstract nature of the ruleset.
76273
Post by: Eihnlazer
The main reason i believe you should be able to move the wings up and down is because of balance acctually.
If you are deepstriking somthing down with no scatter, you shouldnt also recieve the invunerable or cover save. Its supposed to be a choice, one or the other, that a player has to make depending on the situation.
If you can leave the wings up, deepstrike with no scatter, and still get your saves, there is no negative with which to choose from.
71373
Post by: Nilok
DeathReaper wrote:Eihnlazer wrote:I agree with you strictly RAW that we arent given permission to change terrain after the game starts, but I also feel that RAI you can in the case of the skyshield.
Its extremely obvious honestly.
It is really not that obvious.
Nothing in the Shielded or Unfurled configuration tell you to move the walls on the terrain piece (Indeed sometimes this is not even possible because the parts have been glued in place).
I am surprised that people think they should move the terrain after it has been placed.
The game rules are abstract. They have to be otherwise the Skyshield would need a ramp so that tanks that Deep Strike onto it can get down off of it. But it does not have a ramp and you just move on and off with a DT test. thus the abstract nature of the ruleset.
Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down, thus giving models on the shield cover and granting a no scatter deepstrike?
64368
Post by: Rorschach9
DeathReaper wrote:Rorschach9 wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Mythra wrote:In my local store we play it as 4+ cover if they up so you can gtg for a 3+. That is why it would matter b/c of gtg. We play w True LoS so if the walls are up you can take the 4+.
Why wouldn't the wall be up?
Did the Skyshield get placed with the walls down, or are you changing the terrain mid game without any rules telling you to change the terrain pieces?
From the BRB, "At the beginning of the Movement phase, before rolling for reserves,
a model in base contact with a Skyshield Landing Pad can change
its configuration from shielded to unfurled (or vice versa). If there
are models from both sides in base contact with the landing pad, its
configuration cannot be changed."
Permission to change the model at the beginning of the movement phase.
No, that is not permission to change the terrain (It is not a model BTW).
That gives permission to use the Unfurled or Shielded configuration rules.
It does not say that you can physically manipulate and move parts of the terrain feature in question.
I don't see where that line states "unfurled or shielded configuration rules". Merely that you change the configuration. So please tell me what the meaning of "configuration" is, if not the dictionary definition of configuration?
If you take it to mean only the rules that are being used for the rules that specific turn are different, that is certainly one valid interpretation (despite the rules not actually saying that). The more likely interpretation is that you physically change the Skyshield (yes, very well, I concede that it is not a "model" in game rules terms) to have the flaps up or down based on the rule you wish to use that turn.
Am I wrong? Are you wrong? I would have to say no to both. However, I would also argue HIWPI (and likely as intended) you change the physical configuration.
81652
Post by: Johnnytorrance
FAQ says battlements provide 4+ cover.
Inside a fortification. Like inside the bunker, or bastion. 3+
64368
Post by: Rorschach9
Johnnytorrance wrote:FAQ says battlements provide 4+ cover.
Inside a fortification. Like inside the bunker, or bastion. 3+
The skyshield is neither of those however.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
 Nilok wrote:Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down
No, where did this idea come from? thus giving models on the shield cover and granting a no scatter deepstrike?
That is what would happen if the walls were up when the terrain piece was placed on the table, as nothing tells you to move the terrain piece mid game. Basically I am saying that if the walls are up, you leave them up as nothing tells you to change the terrain feature mid game. Shielded and Unfurled configuration have specific rules, and neither of these tell you to change the terrain feature that is the Skyshield. Eihnlazer wrote:The main reason i believe you should be able to move the wings up and down is because of balance acctually.[Sic] If you are deepstriking somthing[Sic] down with no scatter, you shouldnt[Sic] also recieve[Sic] the invunerable[Sic] or cover save. Its supposed to be a choice, one or the other, that a player has to make depending on the situation. If you can leave the wings up, deepstrike with no scatter, and still get your saves, there is no negative with which to choose from.
If you deep strike onto the Skyshield and it is in Unfurled configuration then you are not getting a invulnerable save as you use the rules for the Unfurled configuration, as it has to be in Shielded configuration for it to grant an invulnerable save. Rorschach9 wrote:I don't see where that line states "unfurled or shielded configuration rules". Merely that you change the configuration. So please tell me what the meaning of "configuration" is, if not the dictionary definition of configuration?
BRB Page 115. "A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration, shielded or unfurled, as described below." (115) Shielded configuration and Unfurled configuration are the two configurations that the Skyshield has rules for, and you can change this configuration from Shielded to Unfurled and back again. Nothing in the rules for changing the configuration tell you to move the terrain piece. If you take it to mean only the rules that are being used for the rules that specific turn are different, that is certainly one valid interpretation (despite the rules not actually saying that).
The more likely interpretation is that you physically change the Skyshield (yes, very well, I concede that it is not a "model" in game rules terms) to have the flaps up or down based on the rule you wish to use that turn.
Am I wrong? Are you wrong? I would have to say no to both. However, I would also argue HIWPI (and likely as intended) you change the physical configuration.
Except nothing in the actual rules allows you to move the terrain piece.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
JohnnyTorrance:
How are you allocating wounds to the units inside a building based fortification?
The only method I know of is to allocate a wound to the unit embarked inside a building, via a successful Glance or Penetration against the fortification itself, and all those wounds are 'ignore cover' so it is moot....
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
JinxDragon wrote:JohnnyTorrance:
How are you allocating wounds to the units inside a building based fortification?
The only method I know of is to allocate a wound to the unit embarked inside a building, via a successful Glance or Penetration against the fortification itself, and all those wounds are 'ignore cover' so it is moot....
Grenades thrown into a fire point cause wounds and you can get a cover save from those, as they do not have the ignores cover special rule. (Page 94 has more info)
64368
Post by: Rorschach9
DeathReaper wrote:
Rorschach9 wrote:I don't see where that line states "unfurled or shielded configuration rules". Merely that you change the configuration. So please tell me what the meaning of "configuration" is, if not the dictionary definition of configuration?
BRB Page 115.
"A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration, shielded or unfurled, as described below." (115)
Shielded configuration and Unfurled configuration are the two configurations that the Skyshield has rules for, and you can change this configuration from Shielded to Unfurled and back again. Nothing in the rules for changing the configuration tell you to move the terrain piece.
If you take it to mean only the rules that are being used for the rules that specific turn are different, that is certainly one valid interpretation (despite the rules not actually saying that).
The more likely interpretation is that you physically change the Skyshield (yes, very well, I concede that it is not a "model" in game rules terms) to have the flaps up or down based on the rule you wish to use that turn.
Am I wrong? Are you wrong? I would have to say no to both. However, I would also argue HIWPI (and likely as intended) you change the physical configuration.
Except nothing in the actual rules allows you to move the terrain piece.
Agree to disagree then. I still contend that the Skyshield Landing Pad "has certain rules depending on it's configuration" explicitly refers to it's configuration (as per the English definition of the word) and not simply the rule you are currently running it with.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
DeathReaper,
Will take a closer look at that page, curious about one or two possible 'breaks' that could occur depending on the terminology used.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Rorschach9 wrote:Agree to disagree then. I still contend that the Skyshield Landing Pad "has certain rules depending on it's configuration" explicitly refers to it's configuration (as per the English definition of the word) and not simply the rule you are currently running it with.
Except the Rules specifically state what happens when "A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration, shielded or unfurled , as described below." (115, Emphasis Mine)
"A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration" explicitly refers to "shielded or unfurled"
"a model in base contact with a Skyshield landing Pad can change its configuration from shielded to unfurled (or vice versa)." (115)
A model can change the Skyshield landing Pad's configuration. The rules Describe what shielded and unfurled entail, and it does not mention the players moving parts of the terrain piece...
71373
Post by: Nilok
DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote:Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down
No, where did this idea come from?
Oh, you were saying that because your can't alter the fortification after it is placed, only change its "configuration," it would more advantageous to place it with the shields up so your units can get cover even if you "drop" the shields.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Nilok wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote:Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down
No, where did this idea come from?
Oh, you were saying that because your can't alter the fortification after it is placed, only change its "configuration," it would more advantageous to place it with the shields up so your units can get cover even if you "drop" the shields.
It has nothing to do with dropping the shields. The rules do not tell you to move the terrain after the terrain has been placed.
You should not claim that the walls are down. Indeed the rules do not mention the walls being up or down at all on the terrain feature.
There is just no allowance to move the terrain.
82127
Post by: Uptopdownunder
You don't think "unfurled" means that the walls can be lowered, given that the walls are movable on the model ?
34439
Post by: Formosa
DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote:Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down
No, where did this idea come from?
Oh, you were saying that because your can't alter the fortification after it is placed, only change its "configuration," it would more advantageous to place it with the shields up so your units can get cover even if you "drop" the shields.
I hope that you don't actually play this way lol, it's ridiculous to not allow someone to raise and lower the shield part of the model when they change.the configuration.
In this case I happily say sod that there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the model but who cares, rule no1 is the most important and no amount of rules lawyering raw nonsense will get in its way, have fun and don't take the game too seriously.
64368
Post by: Rorschach9
DeathReaper wrote:Rorschach9 wrote:Agree to disagree then. I still contend that the Skyshield Landing Pad "has certain rules depending on it's configuration" explicitly refers to it's configuration (as per the English definition of the word) and not simply the rule you are currently running it with.
Except the Rules specifically state what happens when "A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration, shielded or unfurled , as described below." (115, Emphasis Mine)
"A Skyshield Landing Pad has certain rules depending on its current configuration" explicitly refers to "shielded or unfurled"
"a model in base contact with a Skyshield landing Pad can change its configuration from shielded to unfurled (or vice versa)." (115)
A model can change the Skyshield landing Pad's configuration. The rules Describe what shielded and unfurled entail, and it does not mention the players moving parts of the terrain piece...
Except it can just as easily be read as "A skyshield landing pad has certain rules depending on it's current configuration", and these rules are, "Shielded or unfurled, as described below." See how easy it is to be read both ways?
Configuration (by definition) explicitly refers to the physical shape of the landing pad itself.
Like I said, agree to disagree on the reading of this. Running the same argument repeatedly does not change that.
71373
Post by: Nilok
 Formosa wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote:Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down
No, where did this idea come from?
Oh, you were saying that because your can't alter the fortification after it is placed, only change its "configuration," it would more advantageous to place it with the shields up so your units can get cover even if you "drop" the shields.
I hope that you don't actually play this way lol, it's ridiculous to not allow someone to raise and lower the shield part of the model when they change.the configuration.
In this case I happily say sod that there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the model but who cares, rule no1 is the most important and no amount of rules lawyering raw nonsense will get in its way, have fun and don't take the game too seriously.
Quote Edited by Formosa
I wouldn't (not)DeathReaper, however, it is always a good idea for proof reading a rule or argument to see how it works from another perspective.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Who can still find their assembly instructions that came with the skyshield? Didn't that have something in there about the configurations in it?
34439
Post by: Formosa
Nilok wrote: Formosa wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote:Are you saying that you should model the Skyshield with the walls up and claim that they are down
No, where did this idea come from?
Oh, you were saying that because your can't alter the fortification after it is placed, only change its "configuration," it would more advantageous to place it with the shields up so your units can get cover even if you "drop" the shields.
I hope that you don't actually play this way lol, it's ridiculous to not allow someone to raise and lower the shield part of the model when they change.the configuration.
In this case I happily say sod that there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the model but who cares, rule no1 is the most important and no amount of rules lawyering raw nonsense will get in its way, have fun and don't take the game too seriously.
Quote Edited by Formosa
I wouldn't (not)DeathReaper, however, it is always a good idea for proof reading a rule or argument to see how it works from another perspective.
Fair enough, I can understand that at least 
59712
Post by: ted1138
The landing pad model is designed so it's sides can be moved between it's two configurations(up/down), and the rules are such that you can change between the two during the game. So what's the problem then with moving them?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
ted1138 wrote:The landing pad model is designed so it's sides can be moved between it's two configurations(up/down), and the rules are such that you can change between the two during the game. So what's the problem then with moving them?
The rules do not give specific permission to change how the model is on the table. Do I think most people would have a problem with the flaps being up or down based on the current configuration? No. As a side note I would play it as a 5+ cover save, since it is not a fortification, nor is it a ruins or defense line.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
I am not so convinced of that HappyJew, unless they Frequently Asked Questioned it or something?
The terrain piece in question is found in the section titled 'fortifications,' it is presented with the same datasheet that we are informed fortifications use, it also required to be a fortification in order to fill the fortification slot and it's points value is even listed as 'fortification cost.' While it lacks any tag stating it is a (fortification) or something similar, the most hold up examples of fortifications also lack any tags informing us outright that they are fortifications. Even the Boston, the center-piece of human fortifications in the 40th millennium, only have a terrain type of Medium Building. It seems the only way we know that any building is a legal fortification is if it is found in this section of the book, or has a data sheet using the 'fortification format' and informing us that these also count as fortifications.
Everything points to this thing being a fortification, an unusual and very poorly Rule supported fortification but still a fortification.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
IF the skyshield meets the requirement for fortification, then so does the aegis defense line so that too should give a 3+ cover
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
Except the Aegis Defense Line has Specific Rules designed for just it, rules which inform us that the cover save is different to a standard fortification.
For a thought exercise, lets say the Aegis Defense Line does not have Specific Rules devoted to it in the Battle Debris section of the book:
What is it's cover save?
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
JinxDragon wrote:Except the Aegis Defense Line has Specific Rules designed for just it, rules which inform us that the cover save is different to a standard fortification.
None of those rule prevent it from giving other cover saves. If simply being in the fortification slot of the FOC qualifies as being a fortification for cover purposes, the the ADL would give both a 4+ for being a Wall and then a 3+ also for being a fortification (and then you use the best save given)
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
Interesting side point but that raises a question:
What then makes the Bastion a fortification?
Page and Paragraph for rule support please.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
JinxDragon wrote:Except the Aegis Defense Line has Specific Rules designed for just it, rules which inform us that the cover save is different to a standard fortification.
For a thought exercise, lets say the Aegis Defense Line does not have Specific Rules devoted to it in the Battle Debris section of the book:
What is it's cover save?
I'm guessing you are asking what it would be if it did not say "Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line)"?
In that case we would look to the chart on page 18 - Since it does not seem to fit anything listed, we look just above the Cover Chart which directs us to Battlefield Terrain. Moving forward from there, we eventually come across "Battlefield Debris" where there are a couple different things it could fall under - Barricades and Walls, or Defence Lines.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
ted1138 wrote:The landing pad model is designed so it's sides can be moved between it's two configurations(up/down), and the rules are such that you can change between the two during the game. So what's the problem then with moving them?
Because there are no rules that allow you to move the terrain piece mid game. They allow you to change the configuration and there are rules telling you exactly what that entails, and none of those rules give you the allowance to move the terrain mid game.
The same as if you moved a building just before your opponents shooting phase so the enemy would not have line of sight to your models in the open.
Rorschach9 wrote:
Except it can just as easily be read as "A skyshield landing pad has certain rules depending on it's current configuration", and these rules are, "Shielded or unfurled, as described below." See how easy it is to be read both ways?
No I do not see how easy it is to be read both ways since they explicitly describe shielded and unfurled in the rules, none of which tells the player to move the terrain piece...
Rorschach9 wrote:Configuration (by definition) explicitly refers to the physical shape of the landing pad itself.
Not by the 40K definition as they explicitly describe the two configurations rules on page 115.
Formosa wrote:I hope that you don't actually play this way lol, it's ridiculous to not allow someone to raise and lower the shield part of the model when they change.the configuration.
Following the rules is ridiculous now?
In this case I happily say sod that there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the model but who cares
So you would be okay with me moving other pieces of terrain to give my guys a cover save when your shooting phase comes around and then move that terrain out of the way when it comes to my shooting phase, after all "there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the [terrain] but who cares" right?
P.S. the Skyshield is terrain and not a model.
rule no1 is the most important and no amount of rules lawyering raw nonsense will get in its way, have fun and don't take the game too seriously.
Rule #1? What do you mean?
Uptopdownunder wrote:You don't think "unfurled" means that the walls can be lowered, given that the walls are movable on the model ?
Unfurled means exactly this: "Unfurled: If a unit deep strikes on top of an unfurled Skyshleld Landing Pad, it will never scatter. Jump units, Jet Pack units, Jetbikes and Skimmers do not need to take Dangerous Terrain tests for moving on to or off of an unfurled skyshield Landing Pad." (115)
That is the extent of the "Unfurled" rules for the Skyshield.
There is notihng in those rules that include changing the terrain piece.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
Happyjew,
I was stating there was no defense line debris entry, period, how then would we calculate the cover save without rule telling us how to do so?
Do we default back to the standard fortification save in that situation?
Do we move onto different debris entries to find what best fits?
Should you be willing to then default to the Wall entry, on the grounds it looks most like a wall, then a follow up question is raised:
What prevents the wall like protrusions of any terrain piece from being treated as walls, if there is no express rule telling us how to calculate that cover save for that individual piece of terrain?
Though given how they Frequently Asked Questioned battlements to act just like walls and nothing more then walls, pre-Stronghold assault, the mentality of 'if it looks like a wall, it is a wall' is probably the Writers Intent.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
JinxDragon wrote:Interesting side point but that raises a few question:
What then makes the Bastion a fortification?
What prevents the Ages defense line from generating both?
Nothing prevents the ADL from giving both cover saves that's the point i'm making. If being a Fortification in the FOC makes them give 3+ cover, then all of them have to give 3+ cover including the ADL.
If you aren't going to let the ADL count as a fortification for 3+ cover, then none of the fortifications can give 3+ cover either.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
 CrownAxe wrote:JinxDragon wrote:Interesting side point but that raises a few question:
What then makes the Bastion a fortification?
What prevents the Ages defense line from generating both?
Nothing prevents the ADL from giving both cover saves that's the point i'm making. If being a Fortification in the FOC makes them give 3+ cover, then all of them have to give 3+ cover including the ADL.
If you aren't going to let the ADL count as a fortification for 3+ cover, then none of the fortifications can give 3+ cover either.
Except for the advanced vs basic rules on page 7
Since the advanced rule gives the ADL a 4+ cover save, it overrides the fortification 3+ cover save, since the rules contradict.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
JinxDragon wrote:Happyjew,
I was stating there was no defense line debris entry, period, how then would we calculate it as there would be no Specific Rule designed for it?
Should you be willing to then default to the Wall entry, on the grounds it looks most like a wall, then a follow up question is raised:
What prevents the wall like protrusions of any fortification piece from being treated as walls?
Though honestly, given how they changed battlements to be 'walls' pre-Stronghold assault, the mentality of 'if it looks like a wall, it is a wall' is probably the Writers Intent and that includes the Skyshield.
OK that explains it. Though looking through the rest of the Battlefield Debris, specifically "Hill Crest" I would change my HIWPI to being a 4+, not a 5+.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
DeathReaper wrote: CrownAxe wrote:JinxDragon wrote:Interesting side point but that raises a few question:
What then makes the Bastion a fortification?
What prevents the Ages defense line from generating both?
Nothing prevents the ADL from giving both cover saves that's the point i'm making. If being a Fortification in the FOC makes them give 3+ cover, then all of them have to give 3+ cover including the ADL.
If you aren't going to let the ADL count as a fortification for 3+ cover, then none of the fortifications can give 3+ cover either.
Except for the advanced vs basic rules on page 7
Since the advanced rule gives the ADL a 4+ cover save, it overrides the fortification 3+ cover save, since the rules contradict.
there is no rules contradiction here. It has both, and you get the 3+ because its the better save
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
CrownAxe,
This also keeps circling around my real concern to all this: The question of 'how then do we calculate if something is a fortification?'
Please provide me with a page informing us on how to calculate if the entries in the fortification section meet the requirements to be considered fortifications, that is if all entries in this section are not fortifications by default.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
CrownAxe wrote: DeathReaper wrote: CrownAxe wrote:JinxDragon wrote:Interesting side point but that raises a few question:
What then makes the Bastion a fortification?
What prevents the Ages defense line from generating both?
Nothing prevents the ADL from giving both cover saves that's the point i'm making. If being a Fortification in the FOC makes them give 3+ cover, then all of them have to give 3+ cover including the ADL.
If you aren't going to let the ADL count as a fortification for 3+ cover, then none of the fortifications can give 3+ cover either.
Except for the advanced vs basic rules on page 7
Since the advanced rule gives the ADL a 4+ cover save, it overrides the fortification 3+ cover save, since the rules contradict.
there is no rules contradiction here. It has both, and you get the 3+ because its the better save
One rule states it confers a 3+ cover save, one rule states it confers a 4+ cover save...
That is contradictory and the advanced rule takes precedence and the ADL gets a 4+ cover save.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
JinxDragon wrote:CrownAxe,
This also keeps circling around my real concern to all this: The question of 'how then do we calculate if something is a fortification?'
Please provide me with a page informing us on how to calculate if the entries in the fortification section meet the requirements to be considered fortifications, that is if all entries in this section are not fortifications by default.
The same way you decide on cover for everything, you and your opponent agree on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote:
One rule states it confers a 3+ cover save, one rule states it confers a 4+ cover save...
That is contradictory and the advanced rule takes precedence and the ADL gets a 4+ cover save.
It's not contradictory. It generates both because it meets both requirements and then you use the best cover save because having more then save as per page 19
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
Crownaxe,
While the terrain rules do contain a line stating that your opponent should talk about terrain and agree on details, technical the book starts with a rule telling us we can discuss with our opponents any aspect of the book and change it at our leisure.
Therefore, for the purpose of Rule debates in an organized forum, we focus on only the default methods outlined by the rule book themselves and not the house rules we might derive at the table top. Like wise, if two players can not agree on some rule change it often falls back to 'default rules' in those situations. So even with your answer I, being a pain in the arse today, could easily state that I refuse to allow any rule changes away from the defaults and we are back at square one. All this highlights why the answer of 'decide on it yourself as per the golden rule' is not a valid answer to the question I have put forth. We have been provided with a set of 'default rules' for terrain, where in these rules is the instructions on how to determine fortifications?
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
Then how do you determine cover for terrain that's not listed in the rulebook?
49616
Post by: grendel083
Personally I've always read it as there being two types of Fortification.
One being purchasable terrain that fills the Fortification slot.
The other being armoured fortified buildings, found on the cover chart.
And Aegis is a purchased fortification, but not the terrain type Fortification listed in the cover charts.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
Problem with that Grendel083,
There is no such thing as terrain type: fortification.
That is the core of the problem, if you look at the fortification data sheet for the Bastion it lists it only as 'medium building' and nothing to state it is the fortification it clearly is meant to be.
Crownaxe,
Can you provide me with an example that doesn't fall into area terrain, forest, ruins, battle-field debris or the dozens of other rules we have for determining what the terrain type is?
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
The point im trying to make is simply being a fortification in the FOC shouldn't determine cover type and there for the Skyshield should give a 3+. Because if your going to do so then the ADL should also give a 3+ but if your not going to let the ADL give 3+ why insist on still letting the skyshield give a 3+ Automatically Appended Next Post: JinxDragon wrote:
Can you provide me with an example that doesn't fall into area terrain, forest, ruins, battle-field debris or the dozens of other rules we have for determining what the terrain type is?
A fridge
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
CrownAxe wrote:The point im trying to make is simply being a fortification in the FOC shouldn't determine cover type and there for the Skyshield should give a 3+. Because if your going to do so then the ADL should also give a 3+ but if your not going to let the ADL give 3+ why insist on still letting the skyshield give a 3+
As I said, Page 7 stops the ADL from being a 3+ cover save as the advanced rule states it is a 4+ cover save. The basic rules state Fortifications confer a 3+, the Advanced rule states the ADL (A Fortification) confers a 4+, the advanced rule wins due to page 7. CrownAxe wrote:JinxDragon wrote:Can you provide me with an example that doesn't fall into area terrain, forest, ruins, battle-field debris or the dozens of other rules we have for determining what the terrain type is?
A fridge
That would be Battlefield Debris...
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
Crownaxe:
A fridge would be battlefield detritus and fits under Wreckage and Rubble.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
JinxDragon wrote:Crownaxe:
A fridge would be battlefield detritus and fits under Wreckage and Rubble.
this fridge is 5" tall how is it just debris
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
When does the size of the terrain piece change what it is?
If I crafted a single piece of forest terrain into 'real world sizes' and placed it down on the table top... it would still be a forest and treated as such.
The fact you are placing a piece of detritus the size of a real world fridge doesn't stop it from being a piece of battlefield detritus.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster
and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
Because the Rules have never taken 'size' or even 'the third dimension' into account very well changes nothing. If the rules do not state the size of an object changes what it is, then the size of the object doesn't have any impact onto what it is. The only thing that matters is what the rules state it is, and how the rules interact with what that object is. As Wreckage and Rubble rules do not state that the piece in question has to be under a minimal size, it could take up the entire battlefield and still fall under this one heading.
As for a bloodthrister:
If the unit in question is being placed as some sort of 'corpse' on the battlefield then it would once more fall under Wreckage and Rubble, because it is detritus left from a previous battle.
However, if you really want to get down to it, we only have permission to place terrain pieces as terrain... not place models with a unit type.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
CrownAxe wrote:
why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster
and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.
One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+.
This is what the English language calls a contradiction.
The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
DeathReaper wrote: CrownAxe wrote:
why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster
and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.
One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+.
This is what the English language calls a contradiction.
The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.
This shirt is green, this shirt is red.
Is it a contridition? No because its both green and red
82127
Post by: Uptopdownunder
If being listed along with all of the other Fortifications and costing "fortification" points to purchase as well as having a rule which says a model in base contact can change the configuration of the landing pad doesn't say to you that the sky shield landing pad is a Fortification that can be moved during the game then there is little point in discussing any of this.
An Icarus Lascannon is a piece of terrain, there is no express permission to move it during the game however everyone accepts that the mounting can be traversed to fire at a target.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
CrownAxe wrote: DeathReaper wrote: CrownAxe wrote: why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.
One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+. This is what the English language calls a contradiction. The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.
This shirt is green, this shirt is red. Is it a contridition? No because its both green and red
That is not even remotely the same situation. Your analogy has nothing to do with the 40K ruleset. The general rule says this wall gives a 3+ cover save. the advanced rule says the same wall gives a 4+ cover save. One says 3+ the other says 4+, which is it, it does not confer both because they both give the wall its cover save value. This is a contradiction even though your argument ignores this fact. Page 7 says advanced beats general thus the 4+ for the ADL trumps the 3+ for a general fortification. Uptopdownunder wrote:An Icarus Lascannon is a piece of terrain, there is no express permission to move it during the game however everyone accepts that the mounting can be traversed to fire at a target.
Why would it matter, you do not need to have Line of Sight from the Icarus Lascannon to anything, only the model firing it needs Line of Sight. (Page 105)
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote: CrownAxe wrote:
why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster
and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.
One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+.
This is what the English language calls a contradiction.
The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.
Absolutely false. Please cite a rule showing that terrain can only ever confer one cover save - your statement requires it.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Dr - for your statement to be correct, you have yo have a rule stating that a piece of terrain can only have one cover save value. Can you provide it?
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
So, what prevents it from providing a 3+ cover save?
Where in the book can I find the formula to determine if something in the fortification section of the book is a fortification or not?
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
JinxDragon wrote:So, what prevents it from providing a 3+ cover save?
Where in the book can I find the formula to determine if something in the fortification section of the book is a fortification or not?
does anything state: terrain type: fortification?
according to the guys that run the tournies in my neck of the woods, there are no fortifications in the game. You'd think strong hold assault would have added some, but they didn't.
Yes you buy them as a fortification, but they are not fortifications. They are buildings, and debris, and other unique things.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote: CrownAxe wrote:
why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster
and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.
One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+.
This is what the English language calls a contradiction.
The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.
Absolutely false. Please cite a rule showing that terrain can only ever confer one cover save - your statement requires it.
Because that is how terrain works.
They only give one cover save...
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote: CrownAxe wrote:
why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster
and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.
One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+.
This is what the English language calls a contradiction.
The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.
Absolutely false. Please cite a rule showing that terrain can only ever confer one cover save - your statement requires it.
Because that is how terrain works.
They only give one cover save...
Then you can produce a rule to shows that
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
No, it is a permissive ruleset, you have to show the rule that says a single piece of terrain can have multiple save values.
Not the other way around...
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
DeathReaper wrote:No, it is a permissive ruleset, you have to show the rule that says a single piece of terrain can have multiple save values.
Not the other way around...
I have two rules saying what cover ADL provides (its terrain description and being a fortification) that's my permission.
You need an exception to change that.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
SirLynchMob,
That is the core of what I am trying to raise, it seems we simply do not have instructions telling us what is and isn't a fortification. Yet people seem more then willing to state that models 25% obscured by a Bastion gains a 3+ cover save because it is a 'fortification.' I have been just trying to find a formula or some sort of logical reasoning, backed by Rule support, that informs us how to determine if X or Y is a 'fortification' which grants a 3+ cover save. Right now we seem to be in a situation where nothing meets the requirement, or everything listed in that section of the book meets the requirement. I'm just looking for some way out, but it seems the debate has now degraded into if a Defense Line can grant more then the 4+.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
JinxDragon wrote:SirLynchMob,
That is the core of what I am trying to raise, it seems we simply do not have instructions telling us what is and isn't a fortification. Yet people seem more then willing to state that models 25% obscured by a Bastion gains a 3+ cover save because it is a 'fortification.' I have been just trying to find a formula or some sort of logical reasoning, backed by Rule support, that informs us how to determine if X or Y is a 'fortification' which grants a 3+ cover save. Right now we seem to be in a situation where nothing meets the requirement, or everything listed in that section of the book meets the requirement. I'm just looking for some way out, but it seems the debate has now degraded into if a Defense Line can grant more then the 4+.
pg 91
it's always worth taking the time to talk to your opponent about the terrain you're using.
This is really a rules as agreed upon area.
if your group agrees it's a fortification than it is. If they don't agree then it's not.
Trying to reach any kind of global consensus is just not going to happen unless it ever gets addressed in a FAQ.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote:No, it is a permissive ruleset, you have to show the rule that says a single piece of terrain can have multiple save values.
Not the other way around...
Rules have been quoted - a single piece of terrain has been given 2 save values and neither is restricted to being the only save value allowed.
Cite rules support please.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
CrownAxe wrote: DeathReaper wrote:No, it is a permissive ruleset, you have to show the rule that says a single piece of terrain can have multiple save values.
Not the other way around...
I have two rules saying what cover ADL provides (its terrain description and being a fortification) that's my permission. [No, that is a contradiction]
You need an exception to change that. [Considering it is a contradiction and not permission, it does not need to be changed]
Added the red text.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
SirLynchMob,
For Rule Debates, the golden rule is not a good answer. Everyone should already know an opponent and themselves can adjust the rules at their own leisure and it would mean ending every question here with 'talk to your opponent and sort it out.' For the purpose of Rule Debate we need quotable rules, which is why we normally consider the default Rules even though we do have a sentence stating the Defaults can he changed by the players. After all, I doubt I would be treated kindly if I went around saying Battlements give a 2+ cover save simply because me and my friend play each other... making it Rule as Written supported!
Personally:
Just going to file this under 'writers screwed up' because it is clear we do not have rules to inform us what is and is not a fortification.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
DeathReaper wrote: CrownAxe wrote: DeathReaper wrote:No, it is a permissive ruleset, you have to show the rule that says a single piece of terrain can have multiple save values.
Not the other way around...
I have two rules saying what cover ADL provides (its terrain description and being a fortification) that's my permission. [No, that is a contradiction]
You need an exception to change that. [Considering it is a contradiction and not permission, it does not need to be changed]
Added the red text.
I told you before its not a contradiction
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
JinxDragon wrote:SirLynchMob,
For Rule Debates, the golden rule is not a good answer. Everyone should already know an opponent and themselves can adjust the rules at their own leisure and it would mean ending every question here with 'talk to your opponent and sort it out.' For the purpose of Rule Debate we need quotable rules, which is why we normally consider the default Rules even though we do have a sentence stating the Defaults can he changed by the players. After all, I doubt I would be treated kindly if I went around saying Battlements give a 2+ cover save simply because me and my friend play each other... making it Rule as Written supported!
Personally:
Just going to file this under 'writers screwed up' because it is clear we do not have rules to inform us what is and is not a fortification.
pg 91 is a reiteration of the golden rule for terrain. It's like they knew the rules were horrid so they put in these two rules and said "figure it for yourself, it doesn't make sense to us either"
I agree though, that's why I jumped on getting stronghold assault. I hoped for clearer rules and they helped clarify a few minor things while creating a bigger mess of rules.
But break out the popcorn and we'll see if DR, Crownaxe and Riegeld can work out RAW
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
And, as I have shown, your statements are incorrect.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
No I've shown you that you are incorrect
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
One rule says the ADL gives a 3+ cover save. One rule says that the ADL gives a 4+ cover save.
These are directly contradictory as you have two save values for the ADL.
The more advanced rule over rides the basic rule as per Page 7.
You have not shown how page 7 is incorrect.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, a contradictory rule ould be one that is more specific. "this gives a 4+ save instead of a 3+" would be the approximate wording that would let page 7 kick in.
You have been given 2 saves, and no rule stating one overwrites the other. Welll, not one you have provided.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote:
One rule says the ADL gives a 3+ cover save. One rule says that the ADL gives a 4+ cover save.
These are directly contradictory as you have two save values for the ADL.
The more advanced rule over rides the basic rule as per Page 7.
You have not shown how page 7 is incorrect.
Please cite a rule stating that terrain can only provide one cover save. You're asserting one exists - prove it.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
rigeld2 wrote:Please cite a rule stating that terrain can only provide one cover save. You're asserting one exists - prove it.
You have that backwards.
It is a permissivve ruleset.
you have to show the rule that allows an ADL to provide multiple cover saves instead of just one.
Prove it.
"For example, a soft obstacle (like a bloodthorn hedge) that would hide soldiers behind it, but would not even slow down enemy shots, confers a 5+ cover save. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save" (18) Although this shows that a single piece of terrain only confers a single cover save.
"Before deploying their armies, it is a very good idea for players to go through all the terrain pieces on the battlefield quickly and agree what kind of cover each will offer." (18) also does not say that multiples are possible.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
rigeld2 wrote:The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.
No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote:The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.
No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.
It's not a contradiction at all.
For example, a model with Terminator Armor, Iron Halo and Storm Shield is granted 3 invulnerable saves. According to your argument here he would only have 1. This directly contradicts what you've argued in the past.
Please explain this discrepancy.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote:The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.
No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.
It's not a contradiction at all.
For example, a model with Terminator Armor, Iron Halo and Storm Shield is granted 3 invulnerable saves. According to your argument here he would only have 1. This directly contradicts what you've argued in the past.
Please explain this discrepancy.
Models are not terrain.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote:The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.
No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.
It's not a contradiction at all.
For example, a model with Terminator Armor, Iron Halo and Storm Shield is granted 3 invulnerable saves. According to your argument here he would only have 1. This directly contradicts what you've argued in the past.
Please explain this discrepancy.
Models are not terrain.
Relevancy?
You've asserted that rules that grant a save are contradictory and there must be permission to grant multiple.
Cite the rule that allows it for invulnerable saves or admit that the arguments contradict each other.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote:The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves.
Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.
No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.
It's not a contradiction at all.
For example, a model with Terminator Armor, Iron Halo and Storm Shield is granted 3 invulnerable saves. According to your argument here he would only have 1. This directly contradicts what you've argued in the past.
Please explain this discrepancy.
Models are not terrain.
Dr, just stop there. You've cited an entirely irrelevant distinction as support. Please concede, as you have shown out you are inconsistent in the ruling here
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
nosferatu1001 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote:The rules have been shown - it's defined as having two different saves. Permission therefore exists to have 2 saves. Cite the restriction you're asserting exists.
No, the rules have been shown that there is a contradiction, not two different saves.
It's not a contradiction at all. For example, a model with Terminator Armor, Iron Halo and Storm Shield is granted 3 invulnerable saves. According to your argument here he would only have 1. This directly contradicts what you've argued in the past. Please explain this discrepancy.
Models are not terrain.
Dr, just stop there. You've cited an entirely irrelevant distinction as support. Please concede, as you have shown out you are inconsistent in the ruling here
I was simply noting that models and terrain are not the same and as such have different rules associated with them, as such they are not comparable.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote:I was simply noting that models and terrain are not the same and as such have different rules associated with them, as such they are not comparable.
In this situation they are comparable. Directly.
Cite rules support for your position please.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:I was simply noting that models and terrain are not the same and as such have different rules associated with them, as such they are not comparable.
In this situation they are comparable. Directly.
Cite rules support for your position please.
They are not comparable. Models are not terrain features.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
In the respect that they can grant dover saves they are.
Again, rules support for why when granted two saves you replace. Page and para stating exactly that, or concede
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:I was simply noting that models and terrain are not the same and as such have different rules associated with them, as such they are not comparable.
In this situation they are comparable. Directly.
Cite rules support for your position please.
They are not comparable. Models are not terrain features.
Correct. How is that relevant to how saves are granted? Again, cite some rules please. So far you're stating facts and declining to provide rules support.
4308
Post by: coredump
Without actual rule support, we call those opinions... or wishful thinking...
34439
Post by: Formosa
DeathReaper wrote:ted1138 wrote:The landing pad model is designed so it's sides can be moved between it's two configurations(up/down), and the rules are such that you can change between the two during the game. So what's the problem then with moving them?
Because there are no rules that allow you to move the terrain piece mid game. They allow you to change the configuration and there are rules telling you exactly what that entails, and none of those rules give you the allowance to move the terrain mid game.
The same as if you moved a building just before your opponents shooting phase so the enemy would not have line of sight to your models in the open.
Rorschach9 wrote:
Except it can just as easily be read as "A skyshield landing pad has certain rules depending on it's current configuration", and these rules are, "Shielded or unfurled, as described below." See how easy it is to be read both ways?
No I do not see how easy it is to be read both ways since they explicitly describe shielded and unfurled in the rules, none of which tells the player to move the terrain piece...
Rorschach9 wrote:Configuration (by definition) explicitly refers to the physical shape of the landing pad itself.
Not by the 40K definition as they explicitly describe the two configurations rules on page 115.
Formosa wrote:I hope that you don't actually play this way lol, it's ridiculous to not allow someone to raise and lower the shield part of the model when they change.the configuration.
Following the rules is ridiculous now?
In this case I happily say sod that there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the model but who cares
So you would be okay with me moving other pieces of terrain to give my guys a cover save when your shooting phase comes around and then move that terrain out of the way when it comes to my shooting phase, after all "there is no "rule" that actually allows you to move the [terrain] but who cares" right?
P.S. the Skyshield is terrain and not a model.
rule no1 is the most important and no amount of rules lawyering raw nonsense will get in its way, have fun and don't take the game too seriously.
Rule #1? What do you mean?
Uptopdownunder wrote:You don't think "unfurled" means that the walls can be lowered, given that the walls are movable on the model ?
Unfurled means exactly this: "Unfurled: If a unit deep strikes on top of an unfurled Skyshleld Landing Pad, it will never scatter. Jump units, Jet Pack units, Jetbikes and Skimmers do not need to take Dangerous Terrain tests for moving on to or off of an unfurled skyshield Landing Pad." (115)
That is the extent of the "Unfurled" rules for the Skyshield.
There is notihng in those rules that include changing the terrain piece.
Ok missed that reply, and to reply myself, "following the rules is ridiculous how?"
Simple answer, it's not, but what your doing is, it's called abusing the rules or being pedantic and overly picky where and when it's not wanted or required, no one cares that there is no "specific rule" that allows you to adjust the model throughout the game, because a vast majority of people are not tourney waac gamers who are afraid such a thing might cost them the game, sadly that's where I see most of these rules abuses and exploits come from :(
All the childish arguing aside above, who actually would dare to play it this way? Or be seen and this pedantic?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
I actually play that you can not move the terrain mid game, as there is no allowance to move the terrain mid game.
It is following the rules, and that is what we are supposed to do.
The BRB explicitly describes the Shielded and Unfurled rules, none of which tells the player to move the terrain piece...
Following the rules is not ridiculous...
71373
Post by: Nilok
I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.
Not changing the wall configuration to follow the active rule on a model designed to do so, will also lead to confusion on which state it is currently in unless you use some sort of marking or visual representation.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Nilok wrote:I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.
Citation needed, because I do not see any rules that govern moving the terrain after the game starts.
71373
Post by: Nilok
DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote:I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.
Citation needed, because I do not see any rules that govern moving the terrain after the game starts.
Unfortunately, since we can't agree on the definition on "change its configuration," I am simply saying how I would play it since arguing our opinion of the definition would just waste people's time.
I also recommend playing by altering the model accordingly since otherwise it may cause problems as I stated above where the players could lose track of the current state of the Skyshield, and LoS would be different than expected and could be viewed as attempting to game your opponent.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Nilok wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote:I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.
Citation needed, because I do not see any rules that govern moving the terrain after the game starts.
Unfortunately, since we can't agree on the definition on "change its configuration,"
Because you refuse to read the rules I have posted?
Do you agree that there are rules for Shielded and different rules for Unfurled?
Do you also agree that the RAW does not allow you to alter the terrain after the game starts?
If not please give a citation.
I am simply saying how I would play it since arguing our opinion of the definition would just waste people's time.
I also recommend playing by altering the model accordingly since otherwise it may cause problems as I stated above where the players could lose track of the current state of the Skyshield, and LoS would be different than expected and could be viewed as attempting to game your opponent.
Weird, why not play by the rules instead of changing them?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote:I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.
Citation needed, because I do not see any rules that govern moving the terrain after the game starts.
Wait you want him to cite a rule to back up what he thinks is RAI?
34439
Post by: Formosa
 Happyjew wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote:I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.
Citation needed, because I do not see any rules that govern moving the terrain after the game starts.
Wait you want him to cite a rule to back up what he thinks is RAI?
Yep that's what he asked haha, I'm just amazed he thinks he could get away with this nonsense in a real game, it seems to me he is trying to justify this stupidity with raw nonsense, pure raw doesn't work it creates this exact kind of nonsense and is why pure raw should never be used, little rai and raw and a whole heap of common sense is what's needed to play this game and I'm seeing non of the common sense in regards to this.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
I play it as not movable because the rules do not mention that the terrain moves. I have not run into an opponent that thought that you could alter the terrain feature after the game started. Moving the terrain after the game starts is a completely foreign concept to me. Happyjew wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Nilok wrote:I disagree that is the intended way to play the Skyshield as it would grant a cover save from the walls to models on the landing pad when the shield should be unfurled and granting clear line of sight.
Citation needed, because I do not see any rules that govern moving the terrain after the game starts.
Wait you want him to cite a rule to back up what he thinks is RAI?
If he was going on RAI, I completely missed that. of course there is no way to back up RAI, but RAI is easily dismissed because we have no idea what the game designers intended.
39783
Post by: theunicorn
OP here, Having played games for over 30 years against all personality types i would say the following.
1 The RAW do not allow for terrain to be modified mid game, If I were to be playing against an opponent that was dead set in following that rule, I would deploy my SSLP with the flaps up, as that would be most advantageous to me.
2 If I were playing against an opponent that wanted to use a SSLP I would expect a small amount of common sense and sportsmanship and play with the expectation that the flaps were to be moved depending on the "configuration". If my opponent using the SSLP were to be a RAW TFG then I would find someone else to play against.
This game already has to many poorly written &/or broken rules no need to add to the mess.
I am a long time veteran that gets called upon in our gaming community when a new-ish player starts rules lawyering for advantage or starts making horribly oppressive spam lists. I have a tremendous innate ability to outdo a TFG at there own game when they start getting out of hand with that type of shenanigans. Combined with a army collection/horde that has grown for the last 20 years to really take advantage of 2nd ed small models hiding in terrain and other RAW legal douchebaggery
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
theunicorn wrote:OP here, Having played games for over 30 years against all personality types i would say the following.
1 The RAW do not allow for terrain to be modified mid game, If I were to be playing against an opponent that was dead set in following that rule, I would deploy my SSLP with the flaps up, as that would be most advantageous to me.
Sounds fair, since that is the RAW.
2 If I were playing against an opponent that wanted to use a SSLP I would expect a small amount of common sense and sportsmanship and play with the expectation that the flaps were to be moved depending on the "configuration". If my opponent using the SSLP were to be a RAW TFG then I would find someone else to play against.
1. Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.
2. Wait, so you would play it RAW if you were using a Skyshield and your opponent "was dead set in following that rule", but your opponent is a " RAW TFG" if he wants to use a skyshield and follow the RAW? and you would "find someone else to play against" Double standard much...
This game already has to many poorly written &/or broken rules no need to add to the mess.
The Fortification rules already add to the mess, this is not a function of the players doing this, the whole of the fortification rules are poorly thought out and do not quite mesh with the rest of the ruleset.
I am a long time veteran that gets called upon in our gaming community when a new-ish player starts rules lawyering for advantage or starts making horribly oppressive spam lists. I have a tremendous innate ability to outdo a TFG at there own game when they start getting out of hand with that type of shenanigans. Combined with a army collection/horde that has grown for the last 20 years to really take advantage of 2nd ed small models hiding in terrain and other RAW legal douchebaggery
So following the RAW is "douchebaggery"?
We need to follow the RAW as close as possible to play the game everyone else is playing. Some things need provisions (like models without eyes being useless as thay can not shoot or declare an assault), but other things work just fine without making whole units useless (Like the Skyshileds configuration rules).
Why change something that is not broken, and why call something " RAW legal douchebaggery" when clearly there is no basis for it.
39783
Post by: theunicorn
The double standard issue. I would prefer to play reasonable opponents that are enjoyable to spend time with.
If one were to insist that I could not change the flaps on my SSLP I would point out how that was greatly in my favor and be sure that they understood how I would benefit from that decision. I do not need that advantage, nor do I want it.
If they were bringing there own SSLP and wanted to abuse a cover save with the flaps always up I would explain the disadvantage that it causes the opponent. If they were to insist on RAW, I would insist on finding a new opponent.
Penalizing yourself with RAW idiocy is fine by me, trying to gain an undue advantage with RAW douchebaggery is classic WAAC / TFG and I can find better ways to entertain myself.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Reasonable is fine, but to make up rules out of thin air because that is the way you think the rules should be, it not okay.
80638
Post by: Epartalis
The simple answer is if your skysheild is "furled" or shielded your units obscured by the wall would have a 4+ cover save. To which things such as space marines camo cloaks could apply giving you a 3+. I had a lengthy debate on two separate threads as to weather a mark of tzeench can increase your invulnerable save to a 3++ and the consensus is that yes it does so I can't see why you wouldn't be able to the same thing(possibly better because shrouded and stealth can stack to a max of 2+) with either tyranids or eldar.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
But that's assuming you're playing a friendly game. If you were going to a tournament you should get with the tournament director before sign up, show him your list, describe in detail how you think a the skysheild should work and once you hear his ruling decide weather or not you wish to participate.
Remember at the end of the day house rules really are what 40k is about. Yes there are plenty of standard rules ect. But since gw doesn't make a complete comprehensive set of terrain to which they assign specific rules there is no one right answer. And even when they try for things such as the skysheild and aegis defense lines there are still serious questions that they either sidestep or never address. In either case it is left up to the players to decide ultimately what is allowed and what is not. So have fething fun and don't be a dick. And if the people you're playing with are being dickheads then find new people to play with. Because there are players out there who aren't completely ridiculous and I hate to see a good game ruined for them.
59712
Post by: ted1138
Seriously? You can move the sides up and down, but you have to pretend they're up or down rather than move them? That has to be the pettiest rules nit-picking I have ever come across. You should be very proud of yourself... [slow claps on way out door]
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
ted1138 wrote:Seriously? You can move the sides up and down, but you have to pretend they're up or down rather than move them?
You can not move the sides up and down once the terrain is on the field as there are no rules that allow you to do so.
Why would you "pretend they're up or down"?
if they are up they are up, if they are down they are down. This has nothing to do with the Shielded or Unfurled rules that accompany the Skyshield.
That has to be the pettiest rules nit-picking I have ever come across. You should be very proud of yourself... [slow claps on way out door]
I was simply alerting people to what the rules say. (Though you didn't need to be so rude).
71373
Post by: Nilok
I believe the pure RAW for the SSLD is that the model itself has to physical change the configuration, as it gives the player no permission to do anything. However, this is not very productive to playing the game and not how I would play it.
59712
Post by: ted1138
"if they are up they are up, if they are down they are down. This has nothing to do with the Shielded or Unfurled rules that accompany the Skyshield."
This is what's wrong with gaming. People who know all the rules, but haven't the wits to use them.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
ted1138 wrote:"if they are up they are up, if they are down they are down. This has nothing to do with the Shielded or Unfurled rules that accompany the Skyshield."
This is what's wrong with gaming. People who know all the rules, but haven't the wits to use them.
Please follow the forums rules. Especially Rule #1. Thanks!
My statement is true. I have not found anything in the Skyshield's rules that says to physically move the terrain piece.
Since this is a permissive ruleset we need permission to do something before we can do it. We do not have permission to move the terrain after it has been placed.
|
|
