Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My official Necron Annihilation Barge, Destroyer and Monolith figures are never covered more than 25% by regulation-sized Aegis Defense Line models. Are they thus incapable of ever receiving the 4+ cover save?

That is correct, sir.

The rule question here is?

JinxDragon wrote:
The rule question here is?

The rules involved here can, at times, seem counter-intuitive.

Keep in mind, Tom, that most vehicles which will not receive a cover save from the wall (due to flight stands) are going to get a cover save from the Jink rule instead, since almost all of them are skimmer vehicles.

Jim,
It is how he formated post that has me scratching my head. TomWilton begun by posting the relevant information to the situation, information that readily provided an answer to the question he would then ask. I took this as indication that he already had an understanding that the model has to be 25% or more obscured to gain the benefit, and that makes the follow up question a bit of a puzzle as to what is really being asked. Of course, your right, I am making an assumption and he could be asking for reassurance that this is correct.

Therefore more details could be of assistance.

My rules question was if the official model size and shape precludes cover. An aside would be to ask if any configuration of the model that defeats this would necessarily be modeling for advantage.

The rules and the laws of physics are not always in happy accord, so I needed to find out. Trust me when I say that I have had someone claim cover for an IG Vendetta from a slight rise because he insisted the original model never came with a flying base and therefore grandfathered in.

In that case he is wrong:
This game uses True Line of Sight in the vast majority of cases and has instructions informing us to use the base the model is provided with. It won't matter if older models have a smaller base, the model your opponent purchased clearly had the stem and it has to be mounted on it. Now if he was fielding one of those older models and claiming 'that was the base it was mounted with' then he would have Rule as Written support, but short of that one can not claim 'grandfather clause.'

As for modelling for advantage:
Technically not Illegal, but you won't make friends plopping down a modified Defense Line designed to give cover save to models normally too large for them.

TomWilton wrote:
My rules question was if the official model size and shape precludes cover.

In general, no. There are various ways for a monolith to get cover. For example, if an Aegis line was placed on a hill..

TomWilton wrote:
An aside would be to ask if any configuration of the model that defeats this would necessarily be modeling for advantage.

There is only one "configuration" for each of the models you mentioned. The instructions included with said models describe what they should look like; failing that the box itself features a decent picture. If somehow your box doesn't have pictures then I'm sure you could look at the official pictures on gw's site.

TomWilton wrote:
The rules and the laws of physics are not always in happy accord, so I needed to find out. Trust me when I say that I have had someone claim cover for an IG Vendetta from a slight rise because he insisted the original model never came with a flying base and therefore grandfathered in.

I find that perfectly acceptable, as long as he was using the original model and it is on the base that was supplied AND it was actually 25% obscurred. However, failing any of those then he's wrong.

Valkyries have ALWAYS come with a flight stand. They were not technically "Flyers" when they came out, but still had the base/stand.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Valkyries have ALWAYS come with a flight stand. They were not technically "Flyers" when they came out, but still had the base/stand.

Forgeworld ones didn't. So it's possible it's a Forgeworld model purchased prior to GW inventing their flyer stands.

I like the question. Because I am 50/50 in the rule behind the defense line. I say this because if i modeled my defiler to have its chassy sitting on the ground instead of a tall walker it would be covered. Different opponents say different things. Its not technically modeling for advantage because you are able to model it that way. It would make the model look dumb but it would make it more beneficial. There should be more clarification on this. I feel a leman russ can sit behind it and get cover but larger models cannot.

I can model my Trygon to be the size of a Carnifex. That doesn't mean it's not modeling for advantage.

TomWilton wrote:
Are they thus incapable of ever receiving the 4+ cover save?

No, its just you might find that it will never happen in practice. But anything can, in theory, be covered 25% by anything from some angle. It might not be one you'll typically find on a table but it could exist.

You must be 25% obscured or no save.

Play with more ruins on your tables. Those give 4+ cover quite easily to vehicles.

If you put the ADL on top of a hill and placed the skimmer at the foot of the hill you'd most likely get the cover save. Then again, you'd probably be getting 4+ cover from the hill, anyway.

PrinceRaven,
While I am more then generous about terrain pieces, I love using hills and other terrain together as it is far more natural, I do have to point out that the order of operations prevent you from putting the Defense Line on top of the hill.

Using Random Placement Rules the purchased Defense Line will be placed on the table before any other terrain pieces can be placed, a sore spot for many whom find their fortifications suddenly surrounded by tall ruins and buildings. Once it comes to terrain placement one will then have to follow the rules for said placement, which includes the inability to place it within X inches from another piece of terrain. Fortifications are terrain pieces, therefore there is no way around this restriction. Even if the hill is placed first, say the Defense Line is not purchased as part of the army but put down as a piece of battle debris, the X inch limitation would still prevent the Defense Line from being put on top of the hill.

If one does model the fortification so it would begin on a hill, by making the hill part of the Defense Line piece, there is grounds for people screaming "Modeling for Advantage" as the hill is not part of the original kit as far as I know.

Now one could bring up pre-built boards, or talking to your opponent about placement, and there is more flexibility when it comes to these things then in the Random Placement Rules. I really do recommend discussing terrain, and the possibility of combining terrain pieces and even adding fortifications to the mix, because one would be doing the game a disservice not to. These pieces are far better looking then standard pieces, they have more natural curves and the rules for different terrain pieces often have no problem being combined seeing most of it is 'Area Terrain' to begin with. It is needed to be done anyway, some terrain has 'veritable statistics' that must be agreed on before the game, so why not take the extra few moments to make the board look more then a mis-matched bunch of terrain pieces that have been thrown together at the last second?

Pre-build boards fall outside of Rules as Written, there is no rules telling us how to make a 'legal' and 'illegal' board prior to game, so there is a need for some flexibility when it comes to armies that bring fortifications with them to start with. Those situations will always need to have some negotiation between the players, and at that time it should be made clear that one wishes to simply place the fortification without obeying the Random Placement Rules, including the X inch limitation, for sake of ease and cinematographic purposes. Once permission has been granted by the opponent, the restriction is no longer in play so the Defense Line can be placed on top of other terrain pieces.

While it is true that fortifications are placed prior to normal terrain by RAW, I have yet to meet anyone who plays by the rules that allow your opponent to grow a hill in front of your fortification. Presumably, this is because most people realise that this rule is incredibly stupid.

True, I personally view it as 'That *******Guy' behavior myself.

To use terrain placement rules to undermine something your opponent purchased, all because one gets a glimpse at their strategy a head of time thanks to this Fortification placement rule, and all for the grand cost of 0 points.... I don't even know why some people even think this sort of behavior is even worthy of defense, but I have seen it on this board in the past. Still, if I do encounter one of those sorts of players one day I have a ace in the sleeve to persuade them not to do so in the future. Take a look at Weapon Emplacement Rules within the Debris section and then take a look at the deathstrike or manicore missile launcher a little more closely, realize how easy it would be to convert them into Weapon Emplacements that you could put down on your side of the table to make up for the loss of a bastion or the likes... also for 0 cost.

I feel dirty just typing that sentence out... still, one volley is normally enough to cement in how one should not abuse the Terrain placement rules.