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.

Hello Dakka,

This maybe has been beaten to death, but I wanted a fresh view on the topic (or heck, post a link to the best other thread):

(PRETEND THEY ALL ARE TOUCHING EDGE TO EDGE)would this line-up be legal:



consider the following quote from the BRB pg 114:

"Composition: Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defence line sections. Each section of Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section."

So I figure if they're all in base contact with each other, right?

Wait a minute, why does the book spell defence with a "C" and my computer wants to spell it with an "S"? oh well, i'm only in college...

Last thing: do you guys think a stalker would gain cover from the ADL?

Configuration is legal, as long as they are all touching.

As to the Stalker, it wold be TLOS.

isnt the words of the ADL that if something is behind it, 4+ cover confered. and the only way to avoid that is to have your models within 2" or so of it. otherwise it counts both ways and across the board.

Sort of.

It confers a 4+ cover save, but if you aren't able to claim the cover you don't get it. If you aren't sufficiently covered for a cover save you don't get it. Usually only really affects vehicles and similar huge things though.

Otherwise you could have a Stompa claiming 4+ cover from a wall that doesn't even reach it's ankle.

I am not sure ausYenLoWang.
It has been a while since I have used the ADL and I have a game tomorrow and want to make sure I am not botching any rules.

 Ascalam wrote:
Sort of.

It confers a 4+ cover save, but if you aren't able to claim the cover you don't get it. If you aren't sufficiently covered for a cover save you don't get it. Usually only really affects vehicles and similar huge things though.

Otherwise you could have a Stompa claiming 4+ cover from a wall that doesn't even reach it's ankle.

agree with the stompa etc

i put my predator next to an adl i have at home and your looking at when up against it the high part of the adl covers up to 50% of the height of the tank.

and the other part is if you put an ADL across the middle of the board, models of normal heights, eg infantry etc, will always get the damn save lol... they can be back 36" and the adl will still be obscuring slightly from another model of the same sizes... as you need to see the whole model OVER the top, that includes feet. lame but thats my understanding of how it works, but remember it goes both ways. usually once within a few inches of it TLOS your model is seeing over the top, but back from that, your in trouble and can give your opponent 4+ cover saves.

As for the 'c' v 's' thing, probably an English v American language usage thing. Like the 'u' in various other words and so on.

Perfectly legal deployment.

I would think that a Stalker is likely to gain a cover save against enemy units at the same elevation, obviously line of sight applies.

C vs. S: The rulebook is written in English, you computer is set to what passes as English spelling in the US.

Those differences drive me insane, I had a hard enough time with spelling as it is....

if you want you could even stack the entire ADL back to back on each other because they fulfill the require meant that are touching base to base in someway. This is a very poor tactic to do so though.

To Quote the FAQ (available on the Black Library website)

Q: Can you deploy the Aegis Defence Line sections in two or
more groups of two or more sections apiece (this way, they will
still be in base contact with at least one other section)? (p114)
A: No – the Aegis defence line sections must be deployed
in an unbroken chain, though they can be connected end-
to-end such as in the example shown on page 114.

So I think this is still Legit

Thanks, gang. I used the ADL in this manner and it worked out.
Also, we decided (barring line if site) that the ADL conferred a 5+ save to the tank as it covered more than 25%, but did not obscure the vehicle.

yukondal wrote:
Thanks, gang. I used the ADL in this manner and it worked out.
Also, we decided (barring line if site) that the ADL conferred a 5+ save to the tank as it covered more than 25%, but did not obscure the vehicle.

Covering more than 25% of a facing IS obscuring the vehicle. And the ADL states that it gives a 4+ save to units it obscures.
However, you came to an amicable house-ruling that everyone's happy with, and that's what counts.

Oh, I just read the pages on vehicles and cover saves.
For some reason I was thinking that it was always a 5+ no matter the cover.

yukondal wrote:
Oh, I just read the pages on vehicles and cover saves.
For some reason I was thinking that it was always a 5+ no matter the cover.

I've had to battle this misconception myself. I think it might be a holdover from 5e. Regardless where it comes from, it's easily dispelled by looking at the caption to Picture 2 on p75 of the BRB. Vehicles, just like all models, get a cover save based on the object that is obscuring them.