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.

The new FAQ 1.2 states that battlements provide a 4+ cover save, and the book says fortifications provide a 3+ save. Since the higher save overrides the lower one and the walls around the battlements of FOR are part of the building then shouldn't units behind these walls receive a 3+ cover save. and the 4+ is intended either for dilapidated buildings or non fortification buildings like the Aegis Defense Line.

clarification: What I mean to say is that it is the battlements that give you a 4+ save, this applies to all battlements such as those found on non fortification buildings like this



If the building is also a fortification that has parts of the fortification that obsure the model such as the image below (assuming they were to be say clustered around the Icarus lascannon) then the model gets a 3+ save from shooting atacks that come from the direction of the wall in respect to the model. If say a building only had walls on the one side then a shooting attack from the direction oposite the wall with respect to the model would give you the battlement 4+ cover save. The key part of the argument is that the walls are part of the fortification not the battlement which is soley the roof of the fortification.

The FaQ clarifies that battlements have a 4+

FAQ explicitly states that battlements have 4+ cover save. FAQ overrides BRB in all cases.FoR is no exemption to this rule.

FAQ trumps BRB, and according to the FAQ battlements give a 4+ cover save.

yes but FOR does not have to override the FAQ. Being on a battlement gives you a 4+; being in cover from a fortification gives you a 3+. you can be both on a battlement and in fortification cover. Since the walls are part of the FOR then being behind them should grant you fortification cover which is separate from battlement cover and is not altered by the FAQ. Thus if one is behind the wall of the FOR then one should get the 3+

If you are behind battlements AND a defined WALL then you get a 3+ save

Lucinator wrote:
yes but FOR does not have to override the FAQ. Being on a battlement gives you a 4+; being in cover from a fortification gives you a 3+. you can be both on a battlement and in fortification cover.

While this is technically possible, it is pretty unlikely because of two factors:
First one is that because the "Wall" portion of battlements (basically anything raised from the floor) only provides 4+ cover, to get 3+ you need to be over 25% obscured by the "floor" of the battlements (ceiling/wall of FoR actually). This means for you to get 3+ cover, firing models need to be within X inches of fortication.
Second one is that because "Wall" portion of battlements block LOS, firing models must be at least Y inches away to have clear LOS to the target
(X and Y depend on target models height, distance from walls, fortification height and firing models height)

This means that model is pretty much always out of LOS in cases where you could claim the 3+ cover save for it.

Lucinator wrote:
Since the walls are part of the FOR then being behind them should grant you fortification cover which is separate from battlement cover and is not altered by the FAQ.

First, the Walls of the battlements are not part of FoR (building) at all. They're part of the FoR (battlements) and provide only 4+ cover as per FAQ. If you mean the non-battlement portion of FoR, you're correct. It's easier to define

Lucinator wrote:
Thus if one is behind the wall of the FOR then one should get the 3+

If you're behind the FoR building, you will get 3+ save. But it is actually pretty rare occurrence.

The faq is the faq and errata is errata. Since they have not in fact changed the rules, just told us how they play them, I still run it at 3+.

Gravmyr wrote:
The faq is the faq and errata is errata. Since they have not in fact changed the rules, just told us how they play them, I still run it at 3+.

You seriously cannot be arguing this. As far as GW (and RAW) are concerned, errata/FAQ distinction does not exist. Good example is Night Scythe Crash and Burn: It is Errata'd in the digital codex, but changed in FAQ answer for the normal codex. So GW are happy to change rules in the FAQ portion, they do it all the time. If you don't believe me, check the NS embarking FAQ on the last page of Necron FAQ.

Now, you're free to make up house rules, like ignoring FAQ answers or changing tactical marine points cost to 5. Or deciding that the "formal" terrain setup part in rulebook is stupid and use modified 5e version instead. But you must recognize that those are all house rules, not RAW. And that "FAQ does not change rules" is about as poor argument as it gets for trying get people not to use them.

Gravmyr wrote:
The faq is the faq and errata is errata. Since they have not in fact changed the rules, just told us how they play them, I still run it at 3+.

SitW says youre wrong.

FAQ do change rules, all the time. Feel free to ignore them, but that IS a houserule.

Gravmyr wrote:
The faq is the faq and errata is errata. Since they have not in fact changed the rules, just told us how they play them, I still run it at 3+.

GW change rules with FAQs all the time.
For the most recent and most blatant example. look at the Out of Range FAQ.

I agree that they do try to change rules all the time with FAQ's, what I am pointing out is that per their own distinctions from their web page that is not what FAQ's are for.

FAQ's are for interpretations of the stated rules, "FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."

Errata is actual changes to the rules, "Errata provide corrections to the errors that sometimes creep into our books. It is important to note that Errata carry the same 'authority' as the main rules and permanently modify published material; where one of our books says one thing and the errata changes this to something else, the errata takes precedence as the 'correct' version of that material."

Amendments are what they are suppose to use to fix things between editions and the like, "Amendments are changes made to our rules in order to make them work within a new context; the most common example would be when a new core rulebook is released which then has a knock-on effect of invalidating existing material. They are not designed to fix newly created weaknesses or shortfalls, but simply to ensure that no rule, unit, item of equipment or whatever else is left incompatible with the current edition of the game."

Their current changes to battlements do not in fact clarify grey areas, they negate sections of rules. As such when they make them errata and change the BRB to match what they are putting forth then it's a change. There have been a number of changes to rules recently via FAQ's and that is not how it should be done. If they put the above forward as the template for how they are going to make changes then they need to follow it.

Gravmyr wrote:
The faq is the faq and errata is errata. Since they have not in fact changed the rules, just told us how they play them, I still run it at 3+.

Gravmyr wrote: Their current changes to battlements do not in fact clarify grey areas, they negate sections of rules. As such when they make them errata and change the BRB to match what they are putting forth then it's a change. There have been a number of changes to rules recently via FAQ's and that is not how it should be done. If they put the above forward as the template for how they are going to make changes then they need to follow it.

So you understand that GW actually does change rules using FAQs (despite what their template says) and you simply choose to ignore that fact.

Cool story brah.

Note my first statement that they try. I look at each one and if it changes the rules I ignore it, if it does it's job and clarifies then I follow their lead.

And that's a great house rule.
Not valid for YMDC though.

Actually it is if you are following their statements on the web site. Any one who says all FAQ's can change rules are not following what GW has put forth on how they will change the rules.

FAQs that change rules are still clarifying - they're clarifying intent. If the intent of the rule was contradictory to the written rule, clarifying that can change the rule.

Not according to their web site.

With the new round of FAQ's I agree that the FoR only provides a 4+ on the battlements.

Now, does that carry over to the SSLP since it is unique terrain and a fortification? Or does it still provide a 3+ on the pad?

Gravmyr wrote:
Note my first statement that they try. I look at each one and if it changes the rules I ignore it, if it does it's job and clarifies then I follow their lead.

So you subjectively ignore portions of FAQ, based on what you think Rules are Intended to be? Note that most instances where rules are clarified, they're actually changed.
So what do you think about that Necron Night Scythe answer? It is as clear cut answer as you can get, but is obviously changing rules. Ignore or accept?

Gravmyr wrote:
Not according to their web site.

Oh, you mean that text written in 2008. I wouldn't call it applicable.
No, consensus (and tenets of YMDC) is that FAQ's are very much part of the rules. Now, you're free to ignore them completely if you wish. But I really don't understand how on earth can someone hold your position. There are only two options:
1) FAQs are not RAW. Therefore, resolving any rule dispute by accepting any answer from FAQ that deviates from RAW even slightly is just a house rule. Example would be using individual Toughness in Challenges.
2) FAQs are RAW. Not accepting all FAQ entries is basically house ruling.

No matter which viewpoint you take, I'm willing to bet you're house ruling. So why not be open about it and admit it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Falco wrote:
Now, does that carry over to the SSLP since it is unique terrain and a fortification? Or does it still provide a 3+ on the pad?

SSLP never provided 3+. SSLP is Terrain Type "Unique" not Terrain Type "Fortification" required to get 3+ cover as per the cover chart on. SSLP being Fortification FOC choice means nothing, same as for ADL.

The Night Scythe is a clarification, it clarified that it is done before damage to the unit embarked as the damage was not mentioned in the Night Scythe's rules. It is a matter of specific overriding general rules.

So anything written on the site before exactly what date is not acceptable?

Edit: There is no terrain type fortification, the onbly place fortification is mentioned is in reference to what you can purchase in the FOC.

As the OP I will rule the FAQ does override the rule book period. No more arguing this fact.

As for what someone said, the walls are not part of the FOR battlement only the roof is; they are part of the FOR building itself as such models behind these walls get a 3+.

Gravmyr wrote:
The Night Scythe is a clarification, it clarified that it is done before damage to the unit embarked as the damage was not mentioned in the Night Scythe's rules. It is a matter of specific overriding general rules.

So anything written on the site before exactly what date is not acceptable?

Edit: There is no terrain type fortification, the onbly place fortification is mentioned is in reference to what you can purchase in the FOC.

Wrong, look under cover saves, fortifications do exist. a "purpose built" fortification.
Regardless of when it was written, do you use a units majority toughness or the other character toughness?


Back to the main topic,
RAW, you are on the battlement, you get 4+.
Half your land raider is sticking out behind the wall, you get a 3+.

 jegsar wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
The Night Scythe is a clarification, it clarified that it is done before damage to the unit embarked as the damage was not mentioned in the Night Scythe's rules. It is a matter of specific overriding general rules.


RAW, you are on the battlement, you get 4+.
Half your land raider is sticking out behind the wall, you get a 3+.

I disagree. If your on a building such as this



then you have a 4+save as it is a building that is not a fortification that has battlements. The four plus save would also apply if you were on the top of say the Landing Pad.

If the fortification has walls that reach up the unit is obscured by the walls as seen here


In this case you have a 3+ to shooting attacks that come from the direction outside the wall. If say this piece had no back wall and the unit was shot from that angle than the unit would have a 4+

Lucinator - that's not true. Those "walls" that stick up are battlements and therefore provide a 4+ cover. Battlements are not area terrain.

please use the perview before pasting as i can't tell what you are trying to say or who you are quoting. first uniting is a ruin as it is half destroyed so you have a 4+ if it blocks 25% LOS to your model.

If i have a model on top of the second picture this is a battlement which provides a 4+ cover save if LOS is 25% blocked.
If the building itself blocks the LOS by 25 i would get a 3+.
The only situation where the building it'self and not the wall of the battlement would back that much LOS MIGHT be if i am on the top at the edge and you are in base contact at the bottom. in 99% of situations it'll be the battlement walls that provide a 4+ save not the actually building.

 jegsar wrote:
please use the perview before pasting as i can't tell what you are trying to say or who you are quoting. first uniting is a ruin as it is half destroyed so you have a 4+ if it blocks 25% LOS to your model.

If i have a model on top of the second picture this is a battlement which provides a 4+ cover save if LOS is 25% blocked.
If the building itself blocks the LOS by 25 i would get a 3+.
The only situation where the building it'self and not the wall of the battlement would back that much LOS MIGHT be if i am on the top at the edge and you are in base contact at the bottom. in 99% of situations it'll be the battlement walls that provide a 4+ save not the actually building.

The main rule book states that battlements are the roof of a building; the wall is not part of the battlements but the building self.

Please give a link to a anything with the type fortification then. Fortifications covers anything purpose built as you say so any building or any other things that exist that were built for war.

The challenge also says you are fighting exclusively that opposing character in the challenge. They are the unit you are fighting. Again, clarification.

Lucinator wrote:
The main rule book states that battlements are the roof of a building; the wall is not part of the battlements but the building self.

Wrong. Even by BRB Page 95 "units on battlements can be shot back at, and will have to rely on their armour (and any cover save from the battlement walls) for protection"
Besides, the FAQ is explicit that the "They (Battlements) serve to protect any models on the roof of the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see page 104), "offering a 4+ cover save.

No, the argument that battlements don't have walls, only buildings do is pretty laughable. And could be refuted by using multi-part building rules also.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
The Night Scythe is a clarification, it clarified that it is done before damage to the unit embarked as the damage was not mentioned in the Night Scythe's rules. It is a matter of specific overriding general rules.

I meant the previous NS FAQ: "Models may embark to NS, even though it is Zooming Flyer", the classic example of why FAQs answers change rules.

Luide wrote:

Lucinator wrote:
The main rule book states that battlements are the roof of a building; the wall is not part of the battlements but the building self.

Wrong. Even by BRB Page 95 "units on battlements can be shot back at, and will have to rely on their armour (and any cover save from the battlement walls) for protection"
Besides, the FAQ is explicit that the "They (Battlements) serve to protect any models on the roof of the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see page 104), "offering a 4+ cover save.

No, the argument that battlements don't have walls, only buildings do is pretty laughable. And could be refuted by using multi-part building rules also.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
The Night Scythe is a clarification, it clarified that it is done before damage to the unit embarked as the damage was not mentioned in the Night Scythe's rules. It is a matter of specific overriding general rules.

I meant the previous NS FAQ: "Models may embark to NS, even though it is Zooming Flyer", the classic example of why FAQs answers change rules.

ok then case closed