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.

If I have a squad of Firewarriors (or any unit) behind an Aegis Defense Line can my opponent claim a cover save from the Defense Line?

For example, i had a squad of firewarriors behind my Defense Line and my opponent out-flanked some IG Penal Legionares. I shot the firewarrirs, including the quad gun, at his unit so he claimed he was ganna go to ground and take the 2+ cover.

Was that right, or is this another way he was cheating?

Ive heard of people doing this before. Its stupid tbh and someone who would actually do it has problems I think. For those who argue "RAW IS THE ONLY WAY" you can technically do it, but then you could claim the same with any piece of cover someone is shooting over.

RAI and using common sense and sportsmanship its blatantly cheating though

Wait how exactly is this RAW, the IG must get pretty close to the thing to be obscured by it, and you still have a movement phase to try and negate it.

It depends how far back from the ADL you were. I mean, if you were far enough back where the ADL was blocking your LOS to his guys, then ya I suppose he could claim it. The only thing I can think of is that it does say "go to ground BEHIND the defence line" and it's pretty clear there is a front and back side on the ADL. But that's a loose argument at best.

Bobug wrote:
Ive heard of people doing this before. Its stupid tbh and someone who would actually do it has problems I think. For those who argue "RAW IS THE ONLY WAY" you can technically do it, but then you could claim the same with any piece of cover someone is shooting over.

RAI and using common sense and sportsmanship its blatantly cheating though

This is not RAW, you are apparently confused. The only question to be answered in this scenario is are the Outflanking models close enough to be obscured 25% by the ADL. If they are that close, then yes. However, given that TLOS comes from the models "eyes" you will find this scenario to be very rare. If the shooters are in BTB with the ADL then the target would more than likely have to be in BTB as well to be obscured, in which case they be in CC.

Fragile wrote:

Bobug wrote:
Ive heard of people doing this before. Its stupid tbh and someone who would actually do it has problems I think. For those who argue "RAW IS THE ONLY WAY" you can technically do it, but then you could claim the same with any piece of cover someone is shooting over.

RAI and using common sense and sportsmanship its blatantly cheating though

This is not RAW, you are apparently confused. The only question to be answered in this scenario is are the Outflanking models close enough to be obscured 25% by the ADL. If they are that close, then yes. However, given that TLOS comes from the models "eyes" you will find this scenario to be very rare. If the shooters are in BTB with the ADL then the target would more than likely have to be in BTB as well to be obscured, in which case they be in CC.

Question - Where does it say you have to be close to the terrain to get a cover save from it?

Let's say, theoretically, a unit is 1-2" back from an ADL and said ADL is up on a hill. They want to shoot at a unit that is, let's just say, 30" away. They can see the unit but only from the waist up (I.E. can't see their legs or bases). Are you implying that the unit being shot at wouldn't get a cover save because they're not close enough to the ADL?

Or am I misinterpreting your post?

I have had this situation pop up a few times.

If it is a competitive situation, I refer my opponent to p8 and p72.

To summarize, cover saves may be taken if the from the point of view of the firer (eyes of infantry/weapon mount of vehicle) 25% or more of the target's body/hull is obscured.

I actually dislike the parts of the ADL that are enclaves with vision slits because of the above principle. I do find them useful for having a body a bit closer to my enemy than my special weapon guys and for granting cover to slightly taller walkers and vehicles.

foolishmortal wrote:
I have had this situation pop up a few times.

If it is a competitive situation, I refer my opponent to p8 and p72.

To summarize, cover saves may be taken if the from the point of view of the firer (eyes of infantry/weapon mount of vehicle) 25% or more of the target's body/hull is obscured.

I actually dislike the parts of the ADL that are enclaves with vision slits because of the above principle. I do find them useful for having a body a bit closer to my enemy than my special weapon guys and for granting cover to slightly taller walkers and vehicles.

I thought there used to be a rule that said if you were within 1" of a barricade that you ignored it for the purposes of determining cover to the unit being shot at. I mean, I'm pretty sure it was there in 5th but I thought i read it somewhere in the 6th book. But I very well may have just assumed.

Though, this is also how my friends and I typically play it.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Let's say, theoretically, a unit is 1-2" back from an ADL and said ADL is up on a hill.

This can not happen, as the ADL needs to be at least 3 inches away from any other terrain pieces/Fortifications.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Let's say, theoretically, a unit is 1-2" back from an ADL and said ADL is up on a hill.

This can not happen, as the ADL needs to be at least 3 inches away from any other terrain pieces/Fortifications.

Not if the hill is part of the board, I.E. the board you buy from GW.

Not everyone plays on a flat surface only using hill terrain pieces.

But who uses that piece of garbage?

 DeathReaper wrote:
But who uses that piece of garbage?

Anyone that wants to

Kevin.

Question - Where does it say you have to be close to the terrain to get a cover save from it?

The rules for cover save are laid out in general as 25% obscurement. LOS through forests are an exception but in general if the ADL doesnt cover 25% of the unit behind it, it does not grant cover.

Let's say, theoretically, a unit is 1-2" back from an ADL and said ADL is up on a hill. They want to shoot at a unit that is, let's just say, 30" away. They can see the unit but only from the waist up (I.E. can't see their legs or bases). Are you implying that the unit being shot at wouldn't get a cover save because they're not close enough to the ADL?

Bend down and look from eye level. If they cannot see the waist down, then they would have cover. Your example here also makes perfect sense for the target unit to get cover as they are in the fire shadow of the hill.

If you come around behind an ADL so that the models arn't obscured anymore, then they will not benifit from the +2 to gone to ground or the ADL.

The ADL must be obscuring the models in question at least 25% for them going to ground to put it at 2+ cover.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you come around behind an ADL so that the models arn't obscured anymore, then they will not benifit from the +2 to gone to ground or the ADL.

Unless the ADL covers all sides, then they could still be obscured.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you come around behind an ADL so that the models arn't obscured anymore, then they will not benifit from the +2 to gone to ground or the ADL.

Unless the ADL covers all sides, then they could still be obscured.

Indeed, which is why TloS is important.


So if the outflanking unit is obscured by the ADL, they will get the 2+ for going to ground.

So if an opposing unit is in a building on the second floor, but is not obscured to units that are shooting from the side, would it also not be granted a save. It is in the terrain but not obscured by it?

For ruins, yes.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But who uses that piece of garbage?

I, for one, do. And if you play on the tables at a GW store, you probably do too.

Just because YOU don't like something from GW doesn't mean it's exempt from situations that may arise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But who uses that piece of garbage?

Anyone that wants to

Kevin.

Question - Where does it say you have to be close to the terrain to get a cover save from it?

The rules for cover save are laid out in general as 25% obscurement. LOS through forests are an exception but in general if the ADL doesnt cover 25% of the unit behind it, it does not grant cover.

Let's say, theoretically, a unit is 1-2" back from an ADL and said ADL is up on a hill. They want to shoot at a unit that is, let's just say, 30" away. They can see the unit but only from the waist up (I.E. can't see their legs or bases). Are you implying that the unit being shot at wouldn't get a cover save because they're not close enough to the ADL?

Bend down and look from eye level. If they cannot see the waist down, then they would have cover. Your example here also makes perfect sense for the target unit to get cover as they are in the fire shadow of the hill.

I know, I'm aware of how cover works. As I stated previously, I wanted to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting the statement made by you. Which, from how I read it, made it sound like you were saying you had to be "close" to the terrain to gain the benefit of it, such as going to ground behind an ADL. I was just trying to clarify if that was your stance or if you agreed with my hypothetical situation (which it sounds like you do). I think we're entering an argument of agreeing with each other. LoL


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NecronLord3 wrote:So if an opposing unit is in a building on the second floor, but is not obscured to units that are shooting from the side, would it also not be granted a save. It is in the terrain but not obscured by it?

BlueDagger wrote:For ruins, yes.

Yes they would get a save or yes they wouldn't?

Because, they wouldn't. Ruins, on their own, aren't area terrain anymore.

If it is ruins with a base does that change the situation?

 Kevin949 wrote:
I thought there used to be a rule that said if you were within 1" of a barricade that you ignored it for the purposes of determining cover to the unit being shot at. I mean, I'm pretty sure it was there in 5th but I thought i read it somewhere in the 6th book. But I very well may have just assumed.

Back in 5th Ed, BtB contact with the Barricade provided an exception, much as you have stated it. (p22 5th Ed BRB)

Sadly, I have not seen a similar stipulation in 6th.

In friendly games, We play with the old 2" rule from shooting out of area terrain, but I also concede that my opponents can have line of sight to anything w/i 2" of the ADL unless something other than the ADL is blocking it.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But who uses that piece of garbage?

I, for one, do. And if you play on the tables at a GW store, you probably do too.

I am sorry you have to play on such bad tables

And no I do not play at a GW store. I play at a much Friendlier LGS.

but that is off topic.


I have not seen an exemption for shooting and walls like there was in 5th, so TLOS applies as normal.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
If it is ruins with a base does that change the situation?

Only for the ground floor, not the rest of the ruin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But who uses that piece of garbage?

I, for one, do. And if you play on the tables at a GW store, you probably do too.

I am sorry you have to play on such bad tables

And no I do not play at a GW store. I play at a much Friendlier LGS.

but that is off topic.


I have not seen an exemption for shooting and walls like there was in 5th, so TLOS applies as normal.

LoL well I don't play there that often since I own my own board now. Our battle bunker out here actually has some really well done tables. I'd play at the other FLGS around me but they either don't have many tables or their hours are just as bad as the battle bunker.

Anywho, ya like I said I couldn't find it in the rules and I had just assumed it was there (and played it as such, since my friends and I have no disagreement to it). We do obviously use TLOS just in certain situations some things make more sense. I mean, the ADL is pretty tall so it seems silly that you'd have a wall you can't see over when it's specific purpose is to shield you and allow return fire. This is of course assuming standard human sized creatures.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Let's say, theoretically, a unit is 1-2" back from an ADL and said ADL is up on a hill.

This can not happen, as the ADL needs to be at least 3 inches away from any other terrain pieces/Fortifications.

DR I know you're paraphrasing, but it only mentions Fortifications in the sentence you're referencing (BRB pg. 120), so there is nothing stopping a player from placing an ADL on top of even a not built-in hill, unless it would exceed the terrain density limit.

 Verd_Warr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Let's say, theoretically, a unit is 1-2" back from an ADL and said ADL is up on a hill.

This can not happen, as the ADL needs to be at least 3 inches away from any other terrain pieces/Fortifications.

DR I know you're paraphrasing, but it only mentions Fortifications in the sentence you're referencing (BRB pg. 120), so there is nothing stopping a player from placing an ADL on top of even a not built-in hill, unless it would exceed the terrain density limit.

Actually you set up fortifications first before the hill is there. That is why it does not specifically mention the fortifications being placed within 3 inches of terrain, it is because you place other terrain after fortifications.

Good luck putting the ADL on something that does not exist yet.

Also P.120 says "Terrain can be placed anywhere on the board where it is more than 3" from other terrain."

ADL's and other fortifications are terrain, so what I said is true.

 Verd_Warr wrote:

DR I know you're paraphrasing, but it only mentions Fortifications in the sentence you're referencing (BRB pg. 120), so there is nothing stopping a player from placing an ADL on top of even a not built-in hill, unless it would exceed the terrain density limit.

I think it only mentions Fortifications because it call for Fortifications to be placed before any other terrain is placed.

A better question might be, can you place Terrain under Fortifications?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
ADL's and other fortifications are terrain

Where does it say this?

foolishmortal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
ADL's and other fortifications are terrain

Where does it say this?

Page 120. Set up Fortifications heading Left column Graph 1.

Also P.114 under the Terrain Type heading tells us that fortifications are terrain, and each fortification entry denotes a terrain type.

Which is also why, when following the rules, many people HATE the terrain placement rules because you can just put a few giant ruins basically in front of the ADL gun emplacement (or the hill) and severely limit it's firing LOS.

OK, so nothing but terrain density limit and some technicality about timing

Yep, either reference is solid. Also, point 1 in the right column on p120.

Thanks

If you deployed the ADL in a rectangle like formation, was standing next to it on one side, the enemy managed to get behind you (the opposite side where none of your unit was standng next to the ADL) and the ADL covered 25% of the model as described in the cover section then yes. They get a cover save from your fire warriors but not from the quadgun as you take the shoots from its height which should be enough to clear it most of the time unless they are too close.