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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yea good luck with that.

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

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

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

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

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

Kangodo wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 Happyjew wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Purifier wrote:

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

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

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

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

FTFY

 Happyjew wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

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

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

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

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

FTFY

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

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



EDIT: Clarity

 Purifier wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FTFY

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

FTFY

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