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.

I've seen a few posts on this but my question is a bit different.

So here we go a Skyshield Landing Pad gives any unit on top when the walls are up a 4++ save note thats not a cover save.

My question is does it also give a 4+ cover save as well?

The reason for the question is because I want to know If I can put some tanks on a SLP with a Ravenwing Darkshroud and with it giving stealth to the tanks would they get a 3+ cover save / 4++ invul save for ignore cover weapons.

Over to you Dakka

This question was raised within at least one of those threads, though berried deep, and I believe there was even a poll on the matter at some point. The conclusion at this point in time, due to the lack of Rule as Written support for any Value to be considered 'correct' by default, is that we can only determine this Value through communicating with our opponents ahead of time. This does mean that the Value will change depending on whom you are playing against, but it is safe to expect it to be around a 4+ Cover Save. That seems to be the most common value that is put forth when people where asked How They Would Play it, and is my answer as well.

That poll I mentioned was on page 2:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/585655.page

Cheers Jinx I did read bits from that thread through the search function, didn't realise how recent it was.

I'll ask my TO first before picking either models up just to be safe.

Definitely ask as if this is going to be a build for a Tournament!

Hell, provide them with an Army list and discuss what you plan to do in advance in case there is any problem, as their word is law at their events and best to know ahead of time.

 GiraffeX wrote:
I've seen a few posts on this but my question is a bit different.

So here we go a Skyshield Landing Pad gives any unit on top when the walls are up a 4++ save note thats not a cover save.

My question is does it also give a 4+ cover save as well?

RAW: No, as a fortification it grants a 3+ cover save not a 4+.
RAI: Units obscured by the Skyshield's armour plates gain a 4+ cover save as if obscured by a defence line. Units obscured by the terrain piece itself gain a 3+ cover save.

One more the question has to be raised:
How do you determine that it is a 3+ Fortification?

At my location we ruled it is 3+ cover save.

Bastion gives a 3+ if your hiding behind the building, on top it is a 4+ cause it specifically says. Aegis specifically says 4+ aswell.

JinxDragon wrote:
One more the question has to be raised:
How do you determine that it is a 3+ Fortification?

You look at the model and say "yep, that's a fortification."

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You look at the model and say "yep, that's a fortification."

And then you look at the list of examples and go, "there are no fortifications". If a battlement doesn't count, nor a trench line, nor a defense line, there is no excuse for anything to actually count as a fortification.

Pyrian wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You look at the model and say "yep, that's a fortification."

And then you look at the list of examples and go, "there are no fortifications". If a battlement doesn't count, nor a trench line, nor a defense line, there is no excuse for anything to actually count as a fortification.

Well that's just a opinion.

Cause technically it is a fortification not restricted by any of those rulings.

TuddFudders wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You look at the model and say "yep, that's a fortification."

And then you look at the list of examples and go, "there are no fortifications". If a battlement doesn't count, nor a trench line, nor a defense line, there is no excuse for anything to actually count as a fortification.

Well that's just a opinion.

Cause technically it is a fortification not restricted by any of those rulings.

So is an Aegis Defense Line, so that would give a 3+ right?

Pyrian wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You look at the model and say "yep, that's a fortification."

And then you look at the list of examples and go, "there are no fortifications". If a battlement doesn't count, nor a trench line, nor a defense line, there is no excuse for anything to actually count as a fortification.

So I take it bastions, aquila strongpoints, fortresses of redemption, firestorm redoubts, vengeance weapon batteries, and bunkers don't count then?

CrownAxe wrote:So is an Aegis Defense Line, so that would give a 3+ right?

No, an Aegis Defence Line is not a fortification, it is a defence line.

 CrownAxe wrote:

TuddFudders wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You look at the model and say "yep, that's a fortification."

And then you look at the list of examples and go, "there are no fortifications". If a battlement doesn't count, nor a trench line, nor a defense line, there is no excuse for anything to actually count as a fortification.

Well that's just a opinion.

Cause technically it is a fortification not restricted by any of those rulings.

So is an Aegis Defense Line, so that would give a 3+ right?

No, because it specifically says on its description it is "battlefield debris" and therefore a 4+.

Don't blame me, blame GW on that one.

TuddFudders wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

TuddFudders wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You look at the model and say "yep, that's a fortification."

And then you look at the list of examples and go, "there are no fortifications". If a battlement doesn't count, nor a trench line, nor a defense line, there is no excuse for anything to actually count as a fortification.

Well that's just a opinion.

Cause technically it is a fortification not restricted by any of those rulings.

So is an Aegis Defense Line, so that would give a 3+ right?

No, because it specifically says on its description it is "battlefield debris" and therefore a 4+.

Don't blame me, blame GW on that one.

A skyshield doesn't have "Fortification" in its terrain type so why does it get to give a 3+ then

 CrownAxe wrote:

TuddFudders wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

TuddFudders wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You look at the model and say "yep, that's a fortification."

And then you look at the list of examples and go, "there are no fortifications". If a battlement doesn't count, nor a trench line, nor a defense line, there is no excuse for anything to actually count as a fortification.

Well that's just a opinion.

Cause technically it is a fortification not restricted by any of those rulings.

So is an Aegis Defense Line, so that would give a 3+ right?

No, because it specifically says on its description it is "battlefield debris" and therefore a 4+.

Don't blame me, blame GW on that one.

A skyshield doesn't have "Fortification" in its terrain type so why does it get to give a 3+ then

Because terrain type is not what gives it the fortification status. Terrain type just gives extra rules, which in this case is how to move on and off.

Everything pretty much gives the 3+ save if your behind it (except aegis). Just being on top of it with "Battlements" label is what makes it a 4+ for most fortifications. Otherwise they are all fortifications cause you literally bought them as that.

Like even that dumb imperial statue is a 3+.

Actually, Terrain Type is exactly what gives things a cover save. If you look, Aegis Defense Line has the type Battlefield Debris (Defense Lines). If you go to page 104 that has Battlefield Debris, it says that a Defense Lines has a 4+ Cover save and get +2 when you go to ground.

The Skyshield Landing Pad's terrain type is "Unique" as you can at best only get a 5+ from being obscured.

Please show me were it has the terrain type "Fortification."

 Nilok wrote:
Actually, Terrain Type is exactly what gives things a cover save. If you look, Aegis Defense Line has the type Battlefield Debris (Defense Lines). If you go to page 104 that has Battlefield Debris, it says that a Defense Lines has a 4+ Cover save and get +2 when you go to ground.

The Skyshield Landing Pad's terrain type is "Unique" as you can at best only get a 5+ from being obscured.

Terrain type is more of a modifier then what sets the cover save.... They are all 3+ unless specifically said otherwise.

If I place a tank and get it obscured by a fortress of redemption or bastion it is a 3+, same goes for a leg on a Skyshield. That is because you buy them as "fortifications" and fortifications give a 3+ according to cover save rules. It is only a 4+ on top of the bastion and other fortifications because they specifically are battlements on top which have their own cover save rule.

If we went with your interpretation that the terrain type is what gives cover save status, then how do you explain the cover saves for redemption, aquilas, etc?

I personally think the skyshield should give a 3+ cover save and just 1 void shield layer and call it a day at 100 points, but that is my opinion. It makes sense fluff wise.

I believe the part you are talking about is on page 18, explaining that there are different types of cover saves, and gives the example that a fortification purpose built for cover would grant a 3+ save, correct?

Also, why should a skyshield be given special rules that it dose not have? The Invulnerable save is representing the shield already.

I don't think I can explain anymore basic then I already have.

The invulnerable just represents the shield it gets fluff wise. It still gets the 3+ fortification save, because it is a fortification. Terrain type as described by the rulebook and stronghold assault is quoted as,

"This tells you what part of the terrain rules you’ll need to refer to when using your fortification. If the fortification is a building, its Armour Value and the presence of
battlements will be listed here."

So basically if the building has hull points and armor or a difficult terrain rule, this is where it is stated. Not always the cover save. If it isn't listed, then you just assume the fortification is a fortification cover save.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You look at the model and say "yep, that's a fortification."

And then you look at the list of examples and go, "there are no fortifications". If a battlement doesn't count, nor a trench line, nor a defense line, there is no excuse for anything to actually count as a fortification.

So I take it bastions, aquila strongpoints, fortresses of redemption, firestorm redoubts, vengeance weapon batteries, and bunkers don't count then?

Absolutely. Models protected by design are either embarked and cannot be normally hit at all, or on the battlement with a 4+. The notion that models protected incidentally rather than by design should get a better save because they might fall through a hole in the rules (a hole, BTW, which your opponent must agree to) is fundamentally ludicrous, in addition to being basically unsupported (as one would assume that getting a cover save from a purpose-built fortification would involve being in the position purpose-built to protect rather than outside of it). There is absolutely no specific, confirmed example in any of the rules of the "purpose-built fortification" terrain, despite numerous fortifications purposefully built which explicitly are not.

Look... There was every reason to think that a battlement, being the very definition of a purpose-built fortification, should give a 3+ cover save. But GW ruled otherwise. And now there's no precedent for the 3+ anywhere at all. You'd have to be better than a battlement, but anything better than that is generally considered embarked.

TuddFudders wrote:
I don't think I can explain anymore basic then I already have.

The invulnerable just represents the shield it gets fluff wise. It still gets the 3+ fortification save, because it is a fortification. Terrain type as described by the rulebook and stronghold assault is quoted as,

"This tells you what part of the terrain rules you’ll need to refer to when using your fortification. If the fortification is a building, its Armour Value and the presence of
battlements will be listed here."

So basically if the building has hull points and armor or a difficult terrain rule, this is where it is stated. Not always the cover save. If it isn't listed, then you just assume the fortification is a fortification cover save.

Correct, the "Terrain Type" section contains the terrain rules for using the terrain ranging from cover, movement, and combat.

I agree that it is a fortification, however, the section that refers to a 3+ Cover save species fortifications purpose built for cover. Can you show me that the Skyshield is purpose built for cover?

 Nilok wrote:

TuddFudders wrote:
I don't think I can explain anymore basic then I already have.

The invulnerable just represents the shield it gets fluff wise. It still gets the 3+ fortification save, because it is a fortification. Terrain type as described by the rulebook and stronghold assault is quoted as,

"This tells you what part of the terrain rules you’ll need to refer to when using your fortification. If the fortification is a building, its Armour Value and the presence of
battlements will be listed here."

So basically if the building has hull points and armor or a difficult terrain rule, this is where it is stated. Not always the cover save. If it isn't listed, then you just assume the fortification is a fortification cover save.

Correct, the "Terrain Type" section contains the terrain rules for using the terrain ranging from cover, movement, and combat.

I agree that it is a fortification, however, the section that refers to a 3+ Cover save species fortifications purpose built for cover. Can you show me that the Skyshield is purpose built for cover?

Come on man. The game plays by cover save by what your obscured by. 4+ for ruin and 3+ for fortification. It doesn't need some kind of stamp that says that to get a cover save.

That's like asking if the ruin or trees were specifically made for cover, which common sense says yes, but technically you won't find this phrase.

I think everyone can agree fortifications are generally made to cover something. It just happens this one gives a invul.

TuddFudders wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

TuddFudders wrote:
I don't think I can explain anymore basic then I already have.

The invulnerable just represents the shield it gets fluff wise. It still gets the 3+ fortification save, because it is a fortification. Terrain type as described by the rulebook and stronghold assault is quoted as,

"This tells you what part of the terrain rules you’ll need to refer to when using your fortification. If the fortification is a building, its Armour Value and the presence of
battlements will be listed here."

So basically if the building has hull points and armor or a difficult terrain rule, this is where it is stated. Not always the cover save. If it isn't listed, then you just assume the fortification is a fortification cover save.

Correct, the "Terrain Type" section contains the terrain rules for using the terrain ranging from cover, movement, and combat.

I agree that it is a fortification, however, the section that refers to a 3+ Cover save species fortifications purpose built for cover. Can you show me that the Skyshield is purpose built for cover?

Come on man. The game plays by cover save by what your obscured by. 4+ for ruin and 3+ for fortification. It doesn't need some kind of stamp that says that to get a cover save.

That's like asking if the ruin or trees were specifically made for cover, which common sense says yes, but technically you won't find this phrase.

I think everyone can agree fortifications are generally made to cover something. It just happens this one gives a invul.

Actually, it says those things exactly in the book, common sense is not needed, nor should be relied on. On page 102, it tells you that shooting through a forest(trees) grants a 5+ cover save, similarly for ruins granting a 4+ on page 98. If the book doesn't define it, it doesn't do it.

5 pages of recent discussion over here, as well.