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.

Kangodo wrote:
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.

So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

 grendel083 wrote:

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

On a completely unrelated note, That's quite possibly the best Flag I've ever seen. I wish Australias flag was 3 armoured legs in a star.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Miri wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
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.

So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

You're paying +50 points for the gun, mind.

Interestingly enough, by the word of the rules Gun Emplacements on the field (not bought) are actually not dilapidated, as there's no mention in their rules section.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
On a completely unrelated note, That's quite possibly the best Flag I've ever seen. I wish Australias flag was 3 armoured legs in a star.

Thanks. I'm quite fond of our national symbol, bit different to the rest.

Miri wrote:
So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

You place it where it's needed, you buy guns and other bits for it.
Also a piece of terrain can easily benifit your opponent instead.

Miri wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
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.

So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

Your paying 50pts for a long chain of defense lines that offers +2 cover if going to ground instead of +1 with the option to also take a gun emplacement.

I didn't know that with nothing more than good terrain placement I could end up with a icarus lascannon lol

 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.

This is absolutely wrong seeing as how vehicles/MCs do not take cover in same manner as infantry models do. To gain any type of a save for a vehicle/MC it must be visibly obscurred; 01% to 25% grants a 5+, 26% to 50% grants a 4+, and more than 50% grants a 3+. What ever is used to block LOS is irrelevant. Additional modifiers such as Stealth and Shrouded stack as normal.

 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.

So in other words, because you would need to referrence other areas of the book to apply rules that are not to your advantage you just ignore them?

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Interestingly enough, by the word of the rules Gun Emplacements on the field (not bought) are actually not dilapidated, as there's no mention in their rules section.

You're right. First to get there shoots it!

Miri wrote:
So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

You are paying 50 points for dibs on it, the ability to shoot the emplaced weapons and for buildings you'll have two additional AV.

I'd love to see the day were people try to be cheesy and include it as neutral terrain, just to have the enemy outroll them and get their trick played against them.

If you want 3+ cover save fortifications, Skyshield Landing Pads are available.

Kangodo wrote:

Miri wrote:
So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

You are paying 50 points for dibs on it, the ability to shoot the emplaced weapons and for buildings you'll have two additional AV.

I'd love to see the day were people try to be cheesy and include it as neutral terrain, just to have the enemy outroll them and get their trick played against them.

Just one problem with that. You roll Table Halves and pick which side you want. Then you handle fortifications and terrain. So ubless you are somehow deploying in my deployment zone before I get to put any models down.. my bettlefield debris defense line and battlefield debris gun emplacement are going to be on my side of the field and manned by my people.

Look, Betray, do whatever you want to.

The point is you're getting a HUGE amount of conflict on an internet website.

Imagine how much contest you'll get from players in tournaments.

Submit the question for FAQ, that's the best you can hope for.

Miri wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Miri wrote:
So I'm paying 50 points for something I can get with good terrain placement?

You are paying 50 points for dibs on it, the ability to shoot the emplaced weapons and for buildings you'll have two additional AV.

I'd love to see the day were people try to be cheesy and include it as neutral terrain, just to have the enemy outroll them and get their trick played against them.

Just one problem with that. You roll Table Halves and pick which side you want. Then you handle fortifications and terrain. So ubless you are somehow deploying in my deployment zone before I get to put any models down.. my bettlefield debris defense line and battlefield debris gun emplacement are going to be on my side of the field and manned by my people.

That's only if you're using "Alternating Terrain" to set up instead of "Narrative Terrain"
And even then, if your opponent won the roll to pick sides they could simply place your wall first in their side first.

Miri wrote:
Just one problem with that. You roll Table Halves and pick which side you want. Then you handle fortifications and terrain. So ubless you are somehow deploying in my deployment zone before I get to put any models down.. my bettlefield debris defense line and battlefield debris gun emplacement are going to be on my side of the field and manned by my people.

No, that's not how it works.
If you bring an ADL to the game with the intention of using it as terrain and I win the roll-off, then I am taking "your" ADL and put it on my half.

I know this argument is about the rules, but to add a little common sense here:

Fortification that one might find on a battlefield:

This photo of Bayeux is courtesy of TripAdvisor" border="0" />

And this is what the argument is about:


Can you really say that the cover save for these two things are the same?

WWII fortifications and those in a science fiction tabletop game, which has its own ruleset, have absolutely nothing to do with each other... Your attempted comparison is meaningless. I would love and hope that the ADL remains a 4+ because nearly all of my opponents use them (and I don't because I prefer highly mobile, non-static armies)... But I can see Betray's point. I need to check my BRB at home and compare what he's said and what the rules say for myself...

Beast wrote:
WWII fortifications and those in a science fiction tabletop game, which has its own ruleset, have absolutely nothing to do with each other... Your attempted comparison is meaningless. I would love and hope that the ADL remains a 4+ because nearly all of my opponents use them (and I don't because I prefer highly mobile, non-static armies)... But I can see Betray's point. I need to check my BRB at home and compare what he's said and what the rules say for myself...

I'm afraid his point has been completly disproven beyond a shadow of doubt.

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

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

My point is that a "fortification" that would receive a 3+ cover would be like the top picture.

I believe the crux of this argument is in GWs multiple use of the word "fortification". The BRB refers to "fortifications" as a group of items that can be selected as part of ones FOC. And then they use the word "fortification" to describe a fortified structure. I can see where this would be confusing for those that are new to the game, but those that are arguing they are the same are just lawyering the rules for their own benefit.

Moridan wrote:
My point is that a "fortification" that would receive a 3+ cover would be like the top picture.

I believe the crux of this argument is in GWs multiple use of the word "fortification". The BRB refers to "fortifications" as a group of items that can be selected as part of ones FOC. And then they use the word "fortification" to describe a fortified structure. I can see where this would be confusing for those that are new to the game, but those that are arguing they are the same are just lawyering the rules for their own benefit.

That's not even a problem as in one instance they're using the term "fortification" as a general cover-all term but in the rules specific to the ADL that all-purpose generalization is overridden.

I think people are just confused because it's a overwrite that is going to a worse conclusion rather than a better one (4+ general save instead of 3+).

Moridan wrote:My point is that a "fortification" that would receive a 3+ cover would be like the top picture.

The top picture wouldn't provide a cover save to those inside, based on the rules in 40k. They'd be embarked within it, which doesn't provide a cover save.

Scipio Africanus wrote:by the word of the rules Gun Emplacements on the field (not bought) are actually not dilapidated, as there's no mention in their rules section.

Actually, it is. It specifically spells out that gun emplacements placed in this manner are non-functional. Not going to bother digging up the pg number for you, since you won't read it anyway, and will keep speaking in goblin. I honestly can't figure out if I'm being trolled, or if a couple people aren't native english speakers, or what is causing this massive breakdown of communication.

In any case, if someone responds with something intelligible, I'll be happy to continue intelligent discourse, but I'm done responding to whatever it is grendel and scipio are throwing at me.

 grendel083 wrote:

Beast wrote:
WWII fortifications and those in a science fiction tabletop game, which has its own ruleset, have absolutely nothing to do with each other... Your attempted comparison is meaningless. I would love and hope that the ADL remains a 4+ because nearly all of my opponents use them (and I don't because I prefer highly mobile, non-static armies)... But I can see Betray's point. I need to check my BRB at home and compare what he's said and what the rules say for myself...

I'm afraid his point has been completly disproven beyond a shadow of doubt.

Wow I didn't know youl spoke for everyone here on Dakka and that whatever you perceive to be correct is what everone else has to believe... You belong in the White House my friend... I think I'll make my own determination based on RAW once I can get to it at home. If his assertions make sense and are logical and provable, then I'll go with that. If yours meet those conditions, I'll go with yours... Cheers.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Scipio Africanus wrote:by the word of the rules Gun Emplacements on the field (not bought) are actually not dilapidated, as there's no mention in their rules section.

Actually, it is. It specifically spells out that gun emplacements placed in this manner are non-functional. Not going to bother digging up the pg number for you, since you won't read it anyway.

Common mistake here. Dilapidated emplaced weapons do not function. However Gun Emplacements do not suffer Dilapidation.

Beast wrote:
Wow I didn't know youl spoke for everyone here on Dakka and that whatever you perceive to be correct is what everone else has to believe... You belong in the White House my friend... I think I'll make my own determination based on RAW once I can get to it at home. If his assertions make sense and are logical and provable, then I'll go with that. If yours meet those conditions, I'll go with yours... Cheers.

By all means. My rule quotes included page numbers to help you find them more quickly.
I don't think they let non-Americans run the White house though sadly, but thatnks for the support!

 grendel083 wrote:

By all means. My rule quotes included page numbers to help you find them more quickly.
I don't think they let non-Americans run the White house though sadly, but thatnks for the support!

Cool, I'll check your page #s - appreciate it.

non-Americans running the White House?... Heh... I think I'll just leave that one completely alone...

Yeah, I was gonna make a comment about Obama but...

Of course I'd totally have to re-paint the outside.
How does Red House sound?

 grendel083 wrote:
Of course I'd totally have to re-paint the outside.
How does Red House sound?

That sounds appropriate

Betray - you appea to be now entirely ignoring rule #1

Your argument has been disproven by showing you what specifc rules apply to the ADL. You are simply ignoring those contradicting you, as you seem to believe you have spotted something noone else has.

You havent

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - you appea to be now entirely ignoring rule #1

Your argument has been disproven by showing you what specifc rules apply to the ADL. You are simply ignoring those contradicting you, as you seem to believe you have spotted something noone else has.

You havent

Me not responding to 2 people who can't construct a proper sentence doesn't disprove anything. If you post solid proof of something, backing it up with page numbers and quotes several times, and my response every time is inevitably some version of "nuh uh!", with no new evidence or explanation of why your proof is invalid, you would eventually quit responding to me as I have to them.

And for the record, the majority of the arguments against me have been: "Your argument has been disproven". Saying something has been disproven doesn't make it so, although to someone skimming through the thread, it may certainly appear that way.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Scipio Africanus wrote:by the word of the rules Gun Emplacements on the field (not bought) are actually not dilapidated, as there's no mention in their rules section.

Actually, it is. It specifically spells out that gun emplacements placed in this manner are non-functional. Not going to bother digging up the pg number for you, since you won't read it anyway, and will keep speaking in goblin. I honestly can't figure out if I'm being trolled, or if a couple people aren't native english speakers, or what is causing this massive breakdown of communication.

In any case, if someone responds with something intelligible, I'll be happy to continue intelligent discourse, but I'm done responding to whatever it is grendel and scipio are throwing at me.

Wow. That's just so Childish.

We've already proven that ADL don't use the dilapidation rules in buildings. I'm a native english speaker. I'm from australia. If you're failing to comprehend my language, then that's your business.

Saying "throwing at me", when we're bringing perfectly valid points to the table that are completely within the bounds of the rulebook, and quote exactly what the rulebook says (you do read the rulebook when you act like this, right? you actually read the rules sections that you're acting like we're lying about?) and exactly what the rule is intended to cause.

I know exactly what you're doing. You know you've been beaten and you're backing out. But rather than step up like a man and admit you are wrong, you're acting like a child. You're insulting me, because you've run out of material. Now I've seen a number of irritating mistakes in your language. I've seen you pretend to understand logical fallacy, but the fact is you don't and you're just too proud to admit you're wrong. I maintain that I've been completely polite to you, I've posed questions (which, I might add have gone unanswered) and that rather than "continue intelligent discourse", you call me a goblin. How is this "Intelligent discourse"? Oh, and on this rules forum you dig up your page numbers, because otherwise there's no point in putting an opinion forward. An assertion is worth nothing when there are actual answers to your questions.

Feel the urge to get angry and continue to post, even though you know you're wrong? We'll be here. And we'll take your abuse, because we love you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:


Me this is bad form. You don't usually start a sentence with a personal pronoun, unless it's 'I'. not responding to 2 tsk tsk... you shouldn't use digits in communication, it's uncomfortable to read. people who can't construct a proper sentence doesn't I'm not even going to comment on how you let this happen disprove anything. If you post solid proof of something, backing it up with page numbers and quotes several times, is this an admission? it sounds like an admission. and my response every time is inevitably some version of "nuh uh!", then you're being childish and refusing to argue. View this. with no new evidence or explanation of why your proof is invalid, Your proof is invalid. We've proven that your proof is invalid. Are you intentionally being a hypocrite? you would eventually quit responding to me as I have to them.you've stopped responding to us because you know you're beat.

You don't need new evidence when your old evidence is definitive.

There needs to be another button on the bottom right: Friend, Ignore, TROLL.

I think I know what Betray is trying to say but I don't have my BRB to help clarify his point (or even to check to see if it is a valid point). I THINK he is trying to say that, yes, the ADL is a Battlefield Debris(Defense Line) but it is also a Purpose Built Fortification that you can buy for your army. And he is saying that ALL Purpose Built Fortifications confer a 3+ save despite what their generic type is (and what save that generic type would normally confer). Further that they give the generic type for ADLs so that you will know what other rules to follow aside from the exception to the cover save change.

This is just what I think his point is (sorry if I've mis-stated anything Betray) and like I've said before, I don't have my BRB here so I obviously can't check for myself if this is a valid reading of RAW.

If you guys aren't completely tired of this thread, do you mind running that thought process to ground with counters because that is the thought process I was taking (blindly without my BRB though)... Thanks

Edit spelling

Beast wrote:
I think I know what Betray is trying to say but I don't have my BRB to help clarify his point (or even to check to see if it is a valid point). I THINK he is trying to say that, yes, the ADL is a Battlefield Debris(Defense Line) but it is also a Purpose Built Fortification that you can buy for your army. And he is saying that ALL Purpose Built Fortifications confer a 3+ save despite what their generic type is (and what save that generic type would normally confer). Further that they give the generic type for ADLs so that you will know what other rules to follow aside from the exception to the cover save change.

This is just what I think his point is (sorry if I've mis-stated anything Betray) and like I've said before, I don't have my BRB here so I obviously can't check for myself if this is a valid reading of RAW.

If you guys aren't completely tired of this thread, do you mind running that thought process to ground with counters because that is the thought process I was taking (blindly without my BRB though)... Thanks

Edit spelling

That pretty much sums it up. It clearly states both, in different sections of the book, neither of which are the section listing the stats and point cost of the ADL. The only logical way I could read it, would be that a non-FoC defense line is a 4+, and the FoC defense line is a 3+. I listed all the page numbers for all the relevant rules, including the ones that "don't" support my argument in the quote on the first page, so people can review them and decide for themselves. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts once you get a chance to check your BRB.

As a side note, I really don't have a vested interest in the ADL. I play an army where the ADL is generally a waste of points either way, because my army is all about mobility(DE). Not camping an ADL. But I just find it highly unusual that so many people on the internet are following the 4+ rule, when it doesn't make a whole lot of sense after reading all of the rules. At least to me.