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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dont put words in my mouth

Your attitude so far has not been conducive to wanting to respond, so I will bow out here. You have no persuasive argument logically, and your presentation is off putting.

I quoted you exactly, only numbering your points for my responses. I find it convenient that no one can point out the answer to your question about what cover save a bastion gives without defaulting to my "failed logic", or something else that has no basis in the rules.

To answer the question for you, it would give a 3+ cover save, just like every other fortification. That is, unless it was placed on the board as a generic piece of battlefield terrain, in which case it would grant a 4+ save, like other dilapidated ruins/buildings.

 grendel083 wrote:
And the "Basic Vs. Advanced" rule on Page 7?
If the rules for an AGL say it gives a 4+ cover save, then it matters not what the general cover save of fortifications is.

Then lucky for me the rules for ADL DON'T say that. The ADL lists it's terrain type. The rule for that terrain type is listed elsewhere, talking about generic terrain. The ADL also says it's a fortification, as it's specifically listed for purchase under the HUGE word fortification. Both the 3+ fortification rule, and the 4+ defense line rule come from parts of the book OTHER than the listing for the ADL.

Purifier wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I encourage you all to take the time to read the entire post. It has all the evidence you need if you are someone decent at reading comprehension.

Stopped reading here.

Betray, you do realise that in formal argument as soon as you insult your opponents you lose, right?

If you were any good at reading comprehension, you'd see that ADL can never benefit from a rule designed for buildings, because it is not building.

I re-refer your "exceptional" reading comprehension to the definition of a building

Page 92, Buildings, Box: Buildings Vs Ruins wrote:
Essentially if your structure is fully enclosed and has a roof, use the rules presented here.

Please, prove to me that an ADL is a building before you use the dilapidation rules as a point.

Grendel, wouldn't Pupose Built Fortifications be more specific than the general rules for battlefield debris (defense lines)? If the ADL is a Purpose Built Fortification (as it appears to be since it is listed as such, you purchase it for your army, and place it separately to other terrain), then logically it follows that it would have different rules than those for general terrain?

Edit- spelling...

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

#1, So it is a Defense Line,
#2, not a fortification.
#3, Purpose built fortification or not, it is a defense line
#4, Again, what is the cover save of a model obscured 25% by a bastion?

1. Correct, for the purposes of determining movement.
2. Wrong, unless you're telling me I can place it for free, because I only have to pay for fortifications.
3. Redundant. You said that already.
4. You tell me. Then tell me where it says that, since a bastion is defined as a "Medium Building" by your logic.

1. Incorrect. It is a Defense Line.

2. No, It's a Fortification for the Force Organisation Chart this is why the unit cars call them fortifications and no other reason. Are you trying to say that a unit that takes up no slot (and some do) are taken for free as well?

3. Maybe.

4. His Logic is the rulebook, what's your logic?

Page 116, Terrain Type: wrote:
Medium Building (Armour Value 14).

Now, the fact that the rules on page 75 the rules tell us

Page 75 wrote:
If the target is obscured... (suffers a hit) it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound.

I'm the one with bad reading comprehension, huh?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beast wrote:
Grendel, wouldn't Pupose Built Fortifications be more specific than the general rules for battlefield debris (defense lines)? If the ADL is a purpose Built Fortification (as it appears to be since it islisted as such, you purchase it for your army, and place it separately to other terrain), then logically it follows that it would have different rules that those for general terrain?

The rules on page 18 are less specific than the rules on page 104.

I feel like this is the kind of person who would argue this point with the person who wrote the rulebook. Someone allready summed up the correct way to read this, and you would think if you were right, one of the thousand's of other players might have spotted that by now.

Beast wrote:
Grendel, wouldn't Pupose Built Fortifications be more specific than the general rules for battlefield debris (defense lines)? If the ADL is a purpose Built Fortification (as it appears to be since it islisted as such, you purchase it for your army, and place it separately to other terrain), then logically it follows that it would have different rules that those for general terrain?

Actually no it wouldn't.
Looking further into the rules there are infact two types of Fortification.
One is a terrain type.
One is item purchased for your army and uses up the "Fortification slot". These have a terrain type listed in their entry.

A ADL not listed as using the terrain type "Fortifiaction", it is listed as "Defence line". "Purpose Built Fortification" or indeed the generic "Fortifcation" simply do not apply to the already defined ADL.

What this does bring up is "what cover save does a Medium building grant?" in the case of things like the bastion. This is up to interpretation slightly, but i'd suggest it fits the description of a Fortified Building and should be counted as Terrian type: Fortification for determining cover saves. YMMV

I think I better stay out of this one since I don't have my BRB with me to cite/check specifics and assertions. Seems like a not-so-cut-and-dried issue though from the counter-arguments so far... Hope it gets resolved since A LOT of people around here use ADLs. Thanks for bringing it up Betray...

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Purifier wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I encourage you all to take the time to read the entire post. It has all the evidence you need if you are someone decent at reading comprehension.

Stopped reading here.

Betray, you do realise that in formal argument as soon as you insult your opponents you lose, right?

If you were any good at reading comprehension, you'd see that ADL can never benefit from a rule designed for buildings, because it is not building.

I re-refer your "exceptional" reading comprehension to the definition of a building

Page 92, Buildings, Box: Buildings Vs Ruins wrote:
Essentially if your structure is fully enclosed and has a roof, use the rules presented here.

Please, prove to me that an ADL is a building before you use the dilapidation rules as a point.

This is a straw man. None of that is listed anywhere near the rules for fortifications in the FoC, or the 3+ cover saves. That information was solely provided to show the context in which the writers defined a difference between a fortification and terrain not purchased with your army.

And to your first comment, if pointing out that people who are responding obviously didn't read the entire post and comprehend it is an insult, then maybe they should read the post and save themself the face. It was glaringly obvious that several people didn't read my entire post. Perhaps that's my fault for performing the due diligence of looking up all the pertinent information first, and posting a WoT. But then I didn't force them to post in a thread that they didn't fully read the topic on either.

The person you quoted even edited his post to point out that his original response was in error, having not understood. Either way, I'm not going to defend myself further on this point. If you obviously didn't understand a post, or didn't read it, I'm gonna call you on it.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dont put words in my mouth

Your attitude so far has not been conducive to wanting to respond, so I will bow out here. You have no persuasive argument logically, and your presentation is off putting.

I quoted you exactly, only numbering your points for my responses. I find it convenient that no one can point out the answer to your question about what cover save a bastion gives without defaulting to my "failed logic", or something else that has no basis in the rules.

To answer the question for you, it would give a 3+ cover save, just like every other fortification. That is, unless it was placed on the board as a generic piece of battlefield terrain, in which case it would grant a 4+ save, like other dilapidated ruins/buildings.

 grendel083 wrote:
And the "Basic Vs. Advanced" rule on Page 7?
If the rules for an AGL say it gives a 4+ cover save, then it matters not what the general cover save of fortifications is.

Then lucky for me the rules for ADL DON'T say that. The ADL lists it's terrain type. The rule for that terrain type is listed elsewhere, talking about generic terrain. The ADL also says it's a fortification, as it's specifically listed for purchase under the HUGE word fortification. Both the 3+ fortification rule, and the 4+ defense line rule come from parts of the book OTHER than the listing for the ADL.

It's listed as a Fortification because it can be purchased in that FOC slot. The rules for the ADL terrain type are very clearly spelled out on page 104. I have no idea how you're thinking that an ADL get you a 3+ cover save when the rules for the Aegis Defense Line, Defense Lines, and Barricades and Walls are very clear.

 grendel083 wrote:

Looking further into the rules there are infact two types of Fortification.
One is a terrain type.
One is item purchased for your army and uses up the "Fortification slot". These have a terrain type listed in their entry.

A ADL not listed as using the terrain type "Fortifiaction", it is listed as "Defence line". "Purpose Built Fortification" or indeed the generic "Fortifcation" simply do not apply to the already defined ADL.

So if an ADL isn't a Fortification, when do I deploy it on the field?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:


This is a straw man. None of that is listed anywhere near the rules for fortifications in the FoC, or the 3+ cover saves. That information was solely provided to show the context in which the writers defined a difference between a fortification and terrain not purchased with your army.

And to your first comment, if pointing out that people who are responding obviously didn't read the entire post and comprehend it is an insult, then maybe they should read the post and save themself the face. It was glaringly obvious that several people didn't read my entire post. Perhaps that's my fault for performing the due diligence of looking up all the pertinent information first, and posting a WoT. But then I didn't force them to post in a thread that they didn't fully read the topic on either.

The person you quoted even edited his post to point out that his original response was in error, having not understood. Either way, I'm not going to defend myself further on this point. If you obviously didn't understand a post, or didn't read it, I'm gonna call you on it.

Where's the straw man?

I don't think I've misrepresented your opinion at all.

Psst: it's this one. I noticed you forgot to quote it.

Are you trying to say that a unit that takes up no slot (and some do) are taken for free as well?
Edit:

Found one. But I was being facetious, that's not a problem for you, is it?

It's this one:

Are you trying to say that a unit that takes up no slot (and some do) are taken for free as well?

If you're going to tell me I'm constructing straw men, you should certainly point out the straw man.

 grendel083 wrote:

A ADL not listed as using the terrain type "Fortifiaction", it is listed as "Defence line".
"Purpose Built Fortification" or indeed the generic "Fortifcation" simply do not apply to the already defined ADL.

1. That's because there's no such thing as terrain type "Fortification".
2. The FoC section defines anything you purchase in the fortification slot as a "Purpose-built fortification."
3. The cover section clearly states, "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save."

Edit: found it

Although I certainly believe that this is a frill; I don't think that term is more meant to refer to things built for defending territory. (Which would include ADL, yes, but they're reclassified as "Defense lines")

Betray - your error was not in the quote, but the random "conclusion" you made up at the end which you claimed was attributed to me

An ADL provides a 4+ cover save, because that is wha tthe rules for it state. A bastion provides a 3+ cover save, because that is what the rules state

Anything else is your failure to comprehend a fairly straightforward set of rules, which you are now angrily defending with insilts and passive aggressiveness.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

A bastion provides a 3+ cover save, because that is what the rules state

I'm not trying to contradict you, or to come to blows, but I'm having a bit of trouble finding the words that say this. Can one of you give me a page number please?

Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Looking further into the rules there are infact two types of Fortification.
One is a terrain type.
One is item purchased for your army and uses up the "Fortification slot". These have a terrain type listed in their entry.

A ADL not listed as using the terrain type "Fortifiaction", it is listed as "Defence line". "Purpose Built Fortification" or indeed the generic "Fortifcation" simply do not apply to the already defined ADL.

So if an ADL isn't a Fortification, when do I deploy it on the field?

Didn't read what I wrote, did you?
You'll notice i said a ADL was a fortification. I said there are two types of Fortifcation defined in the BRB.

Now to drive this point further home:
Fortications (the purchased kind, not the Terrain Type) are NOT of the Terrain Type "Fortication" unless their datasheet says they are.

Fortifcations Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: This tells you what part of the terrainr rules you'll need to refer to when using your Fortication.

Aegis Defence Line Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines)

The AGL does not use the Terrain Type: Fortification.
It is however a Fortification (as in uses up a Fortification slot, not as in Terrian Type. These are two very different things).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

1. That's because there's no such thing as terrain type "Fortification".

Wrong. You pointed it out in your first post. It's on page 18 in the cover chart.

Send your case to be FAQ'd if you think you have a good case.

 grendel083 wrote:

Fortifcations Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your Fortification.

Aegis Defence Line Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines)

This is actually definitive.

@Grendell: Show me a single piece of terrain that is classified as terrain type: Fortification. It doesn't exist. What you quoted is the description of what fortifications show for terrain type. All fortifications have a terrain type listed, and none of them say "Fortification."

@nos: The only place you could draw the conclusion that it would give a 3+ save while obscured behind the bastion is from where it defines fortifications as being the objects that you purchase for your FoC, that ALL count as purpose-built fortifications. And if we're utilizing that rule, then it would apply to the ADL as well. That's my entire point. Fortifications are thicker, sturdier versions of the buildings and battlefield debris than standard generic terrain. I apologize nos if I came across as rude earlier. It was not my intent. Just frustrating getting bombarded with comments and questions that I feel were answered in my very first post.

 Archonate wrote:
Send your case to be FAQ'd if you think you have a good case.

Already did. Thanks for the tip though.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Fortifcations Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your Fortification.

Aegis Defence Line Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines)

This is actually definitive.

Not when something else says an ADL purchased as part of your FoC is a purpose-built fortification, and purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. That's far from definative. That's downright contradictory. Both of them are definitive if you choose to ignore the other one.

 grendel083 wrote:

Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Looking further into the rules there are infact two types of Fortification.
One is a terrain type.
One is item purchased for your army and uses up the "Fortification slot". These have a terrain type listed in their entry.

A ADL not listed as using the terrain type "Fortifiaction", it is listed as "Defence line". "Purpose Built Fortification" or indeed the generic "Fortifcation" simply do not apply to the already defined ADL.

So if an ADL isn't a Fortification, when do I deploy it on the field?

Didn't read what I wrote, did you?
You'll notice i said a ADL was a fortification. I said there are two types of Fortifcation defined in the BRB.

Now to drive this point further home:
Fortications (the purchased kind, not the Terrain Type) are NOT of the Terrain Type "Fortication" unless their datasheet says they are.

Fortifcations Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: This tells you what part of the terrainr rules you'll need to refer to when using your Fortication.

Aegis Defence Line Page 114 wrote:Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines)

The AGL does not use the Terrain Type: Fortification.
It is however a Fortification (as in uses up a Fortification slot, not as in Terrian Type. These are two very different things).

So why am I paying 50 points for an item that fills a FoC slot and doesn't provide me with anything more then if I just plopped down some broken walls in front of my deployment zone during terrain placing?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
@Grendell: Show me a single piece of terrain that is classified as terrain type: Fortification. It doesn't exist. What you quoted is the description of what fortifications show for terrain type. All fortifications have a terrain type listed, and none of them say "Fortification."

Exactly.
No purchased fortification uses the Fortification terrian type.

Now if you placed a piece of terrain during table set-up, and when going through terrain with your opponent at the start of the game you both agree it counts as a Fortication, well there you go. Most terrain isn't defined, it's up to you and your oponent to match it to the appropriate rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Miri wrote:
So why am I paying 50 points for an item that fills a FoC slot and doesn't provide me with anything more then if I just plopped down some broken walls in front of my deployment zone during terrain placing?

Because you place it where it will be usefull. And attach weapons to it like a quad gun.
You can use the wall infront of your deployment zone, or your opponent might win the roll-off and deploy behind it instead.

 grendel083 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
@Grendell: Show me a single piece of terrain that is classified as terrain type: Fortification. It doesn't exist. What you quoted is the description of what fortifications show for terrain type. All fortifications have a terrain type listed, and none of them say "Fortification."

Exactly.
No purchased fortification uses the Fortification terrian type.

Now if you placed a piece of terrain during table set-up, and when going through terrain with your opponent at the start of the game you both agree it counts as a Fortication, well there you go. Most terrain isn't defined, it's up to you and your oponent to match it to the appropriate rules.

lol, no dude. Read under the FoC. If you purchase something as a fortification, it is a purpose-built fortification. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. You're making up terrain types that don't exist.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
lol, no dude. Read under the FoC. If you purchase something as a fortification, it is a purpose-built fortification. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. You're making up terrain types that don't exist.

There are non so blind as those that will not see.

I've quoted you the rules and shown the page numbers.
Purchased Fortifications have the terrain type listed in their Datasheet. Page 114. Non of them have "Purpose Buit Fortication" listed. So ther's no reason to use it.

No, Betray. The rules that are specifically about the ADL are thus:

page 114, Terrain type: wrote:
this tells you what terrain pieces the fortification consists of

page 114, Terrain type (ADL) wrote:
Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines)

The terrain is a Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) and thus uses those rules. I do not understand how you can still be arguing this. Are you just sticking to your pride, or something?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

lol, no dude. Read under the FoC. If you purchase something as a fortification, it is a purpose-built fortification. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. You're making up terrain types that don't exist.

Lol, no dude.

Read the Fortification rules.

Read them until you realise how wrong this pointless argument is.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

BRB, under fortifications states, If you purchase something as a fortification, it is a purpose-built fortification. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save.

The fortification is a fortification and thus uses those rules. I do not understand how you can still be arguing this. Are you just sticking to your pride, or something?

See, I can make those circular arguments while ignoring the other listings too.

BRB, pg 114, Fortifications: Aegis Defense Line. Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines)

BRB, pg 104, Defense Lines, Defense lines follow all the same rules for barricades and walls except that a unit that decides to go to ground behind a defense line gains +2 to it's cover save.
Barricades and Walls, If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a 4+ cover save. For the purposes of charge moves, models that are both in base contact with a barricade and within 2" of each other are treated as being in base contact. Despite the models on either side not literally being in base contact, the combatants fight nonetheless.

This is cut and dry. The aegis rules tell you it's specific type is Battlefield debris (defense line)

Your own post provided me with the rules for defense lines. It tells you to follow the rules for barricades and walls with an exception that you get +2 cover for going to ground.

Uncover your ears and stop yelling "lalalala" long enough to READ the rules you posted. They are quite clear.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

BRB, under fortifications states, If you purchase something as a fortification, it is a purpose-built fortification. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save.

The fortification is a fortification and thus uses those rules. I do not understand how you can still be arguing this. Are you just sticking to your pride, or something?

See, I can make those circular arguments while ignoring the other listings too.

You failed to quote me sir.

Please, stop poorly using terms for logical fallacies. I'm yet to see you use one correctly.

Let's set this up as a formal argument.

A
B
If A then B
If B then C
.:. C

Nice formal structure, huh?

a. A fortification makes use of the rules described in its "Terrain Type" rules, completely and utterly (the rules explicitly state this when describing the fortification entries)
b. An ADL uses the Terrain Type "Battlefield Debris: Defence Line"
If A, then B.
A, therefore B
If B, then C.
B, therefore C.
C, Conclusion
ADLs have a 4+ cover save

I'm not the one adding a random, unsupported assertion D (that they only use that terrain type for the purposes of movement) to hide the unsoundness of my argument.

There is nothing cyclical about that argument. It is perfectly valid and completely sound.

PS:
Please, stop trying to bluster your way around definitive rules points here. RAW, ADLs make use of Defence Lines.
I don't care for your HYWPI argument.

Edit further:

rather than telling us we've misread you or that we've failed to read you, repost your point Maybe if it's singled out, we'll understand what you're telling us that we're missing more effectively.

Step 1: What are we talking about?
Aegis Defence Line
Step 2: What type is it?
*Flips to page 114*
It's Battlefield Debris with subtype 'Defence Line'
Step 3: What does that give?
*flips to page 105*
Defence Line has the same rules as barricades and walls, except for the additional Go to Ground.
Barricades and Walls give a 4+ cover save.

It's a specific rule about the ADL and that beats every general fortification-rule that you can find in the book.

Kangodo wrote:

It's a specific rule about the ADL and that beats every general fortification-rule that you can find in the book.

We all keep saying this. It completely contradicts him and he's just refusing to accept that it's the case.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

It's a specific rule about the ADL and that beats every general fortification-rule that you can find in the book.

We all keep saying this. It completely contradicts him and he's just refusing to accept that it's the case.

We've even proved that there's a difference between purchased Fortications and the Terrain Type: Fortification.
With rules no less!