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.

 warpspider89 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 warpspider89 wrote:
I am not using Terrain Type: Fortification because that doesn't exist.

There's no terrain in the BRB that is a Fortification? are you quite sure? Bet I can find one...

It is a fortification, as per page 114, that has the applicable rules from Battlefield Debris (Defensive Lines).

So following those rules you get a 4+, yet you choose to use something else?

You are misquoting me. I said that there is no "terrain type: fortification". However, there are fortifications and the ADL is one of them.

Just look at the list of fortifications that begins on page 114. There are four fortifications listed: the Aegis Defence Line, the Skyshield Landing Pad, the Imperial Bastion, and the Fortress of Redemption.

Each of these fortifications has a terrain type. These direct the player to other rules that apply. In order these terrain types are: Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines), Unique, Medium Building, and Small/Medium/Small Building.

You glossed over the important part of that section. The Terrain type tells you what rules to use for each Fortification. In this case you are directed to use the Rules for barricades and walls for the ADL. Which you are not.

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

So an ADL isn't a Fortification then since we have to use the Defence Line rules? In that case let me field an ADL and a Bastion.

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

They are clearly two different things since they have separate meanings.

The ADL is a fortification that has the terrain type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line). It is clearly such since it is listed under the BRB section: Fortifications (which indicates that it is a fortification [this is supported by the FOC page) and on its write up lists its terrain type as above.

By your logic the Imperial Bastion is not a fortification but instead is a building because that is its terrain type.

 Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

So an ADL isn't a Fortification then since we have to use the Defence Line rules? In that case let me field an ADL and a Bastion.

You can, as part of standard terrain setup.
However if your oppenent wins the roll for setup he can place it first. And the Bastion will count as Dilapidated (p96)
It's all in the terrain rules...

"Barricades and walls" which you put on the table as a terrain so the battlefield looks nice have a 4+ cover save.

Fortifications which you put on the table as a FOC point-payed option have a 3+ cover save. Because fortifications give 3+. And its not only for aegis but also for skyshield, bastion, fortress.

If you would use ADL model as a terrain (and not as a point-paid fortification) then it would get only 4+ cover save. Silly situation but RAW.

But althought BetrayTheWorld was correct on this from the begining I don't believe it is possible to convience people who can't deal with being wrong on something. And there are also people who will disagree because they will think 3+ is too powerfull. It is often the problem when most of the people gaming group act like this :
"we are in majority so we are right"
and then your two options are: stop playing or let it go and play on 4+ cover save. Choose wisely ; )

 warpspider89 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

They are clearly two different things since they have separate meanings.

The ADL is a fortification that has the terrain type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line). It is clearly such since it is listed under the BRB section: Fortifications (which indicates that it is a fortification [this is supported by the FOC page) and on its write up lists its terrain type as above.

By your logic the Imperial Bastion is not a fortification but instead is a building because that is its terrain type.

The bastion is a building. How would you place troops inside if it wasn't a building?
I'm saying the ADL is a fortification (as in it uses a Fortifcation slot in the FOC), but is terrain type: Defence Line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xyxel wrote:
Fortifications which you put on the table as a FOC point-payed option have a 3+ cover save. Because fortifications give 3+.

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

 grendel083 wrote:

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

And mine says that it is a Fortification that happens to also be a Defense Line..

grendel083 wrote:

 Xyxel wrote:
Fortifications which you put on the table as a FOC point-payed option have a 3+ cover save. Because fortifications give 3+.

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

Well, then take another look at page 114 and read what is writen at the top, in capital letters. "FORTIFICATIONS" lol
(some people will pretend to be be blind, not to have to admit to a mistake)

Fortress of Redemption (with your logic grendel083) is not a fortification?
FOC and Terrain types are different thing. Fortifications have different kinds of terrain types.

 Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

And mine says that it is a Fortification that happens to also be a Defense Line..

So if in next months White Dwarf Games Workshop release a new Fortification:

Barbed Wire: 30pts
Terrain Type: Tanglewire (6+ cover save, p105)

You would try and claim a 3+ cover save because it was bought using the Fortification Slot?

Not all purchased Fortifications are in fact a Fortification. That's why you look to the Terrain Type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xyxel wrote:
Fortifications have different kinds of terrain types.

And you're choosing to ignore this fact, by applying a type not listed on the Datasheet.

 Xyxel wrote:

FOC and Terrain types are different thing. Fortifications have different kinds of terrain types.

Exactly! As a result of it being a fortification it provides a 3+ cover save and due to it having the terrain type Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) there will be two main effects:

(1) 2+ Cover Save for Go to Ground

(2) Assaulters engaging a unit behind the ADL count as being in base to base contact so long as they are within 2" of the ADL walls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

And mine says that it is a Fortification that happens to also be a Defense Line..

So if in next months White Dwarf Games Workshop release a new Fortification:

Barbed Wire: 30pts
Terrain Type: Tanglewire (6+ cover save, p105)

You would try and claim a 3+ cover save because it was bought using the Fortification Slot?

Not all purchased Fortifications are in fact a Fortification. That's why you look to the Terrain Type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xyxel wrote:
Fortifications have different kinds of terrain types.

And you're choosing to ignore this fact, by applying a type not listed on the Datasheet.

If they were released as fortifications, as your straw man argument suggests, then yes they would be fortifications.

Once again, if you look at the terrain type of an Imperial Bastion, then you would find that it is listed as Terrain Type: Medium Building rather than Terrain Type: Fortification. Again, this is because it is listed as a Fortification under the Fortification Section and the subsection 'Terrain Type' refers to additional relevant rules that apply to that particular Fortification.

Guys, OP stopped talking pages ago.

This obviously isn't his version of "intelligent discourse"

 Xyxel wrote:
Well, then take another look at page 114

Yes lets.
"All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in game"
All the information is there, Terrain Type: Battlefield Debis (Defence Line) (which is on page 104) yet you choose a rule on page 18 not listed on the Datasheet. Interesting...

Fortress of Redemption (with your logic grendel083) is not a fortification?

So you're saying it isn't a 4 part building? More interesting...

 grendel083 wrote:

 Xyxel wrote:
Well, then take another look at page 114

Yes lets.
"All fortifications have a datasheet that contains all the information you'll need to use them in game"
All the information is there, Terrain Type: Battlefield Debis (Defence Line) (which is on page 104) yet you choose a rule on page 18 not listed on the Datasheet. Interesting...

Fortress of Redemption (with your logic grendel083) is not a fortification?

So you're saying it isn't a 4 part building? More interesting...

I really just want someone to post a video of betray trying to argue about this in a big tournament like adepticon.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
I really just want someone to post a video of betray trying to argue about this in a big tournament like adepticon.

Ha! It would be a very short video...

even if the aegis is a fortification, its a fortification with a special type (defence line) that gives it a 4+ cover

there are not two sets of rules for defence lines,

only one, that gives them 4+ cover, and overrides any general rules that might apply to the FO slot, in general, but not this terrain type in particular.

so while all "fortifications" even by the loose (probobly not RAI, definetly not RAW) definition that everything bought in the FO chart is a "fortification",

just because fortifications in general get a 3+, doesnt mean a fortification, with a specific rule stating it grants a 4+ save, still grants a 3+.

the specific entry for the type overrides the general rule for the slot.

 Miri wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's strange, my BRB lists the ADL as being a Defence Line.

And mine says that it is a Fortification that happens to also be a Defense Line..

And the specific rule of cover saves for its terrain type, which is BAttlefield debris (Defense Lines), is more specific than the general rule for Fortification cover saves.

Therefore according to page 104 "Defence lines follow all the same rules for barricades and walls" coupled with "If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a 4+ cover save" tells us that the 4+ is specific to the ADL fortification, which is different than the 3+ general rule for fortification cover saves.

It seems to me like the best answer would be one that includes all relevant rules. The answer of it having a 4+ cover save ignores more of the relevant rules than when it is considered to have a 3+ since that only has the 3+ override the 4+ rule.

Yeah, an Aegis Line is clearly stated to follow the rules for the Barricades and Walls under the Battle Field Debris section, which gives a 4+ cover save.

Just because the Aegis Line is under the chapter/book section called Fortifications doesn't mean it follows the rules for fortifications.

Furthermore, where does it say the Aegis Line is a purpose-built anything? If someone places terrain using linear plastic thingies of trees and makes a little tree circle around a unit, does that count as a purpose built fortification? The player did it on purpose didn't he? The answer of course is no, because what so many people have already stated, the Aegis Line follows specific rule written very specifically for it.

 warpspider89 wrote:
It seems to me like the best answer would be one that includes all relevant rules. The answer of it having a 4+ cover save ignores more of the relevant rules than when it is considered to have a 3+ since that only has the 3+ override the 4+ rule.

Except specific beats general, therefore the 4+ cover save specific rule beats the 3+ cover save general rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 warpspider89 wrote:
It seems to me like the best answer would be one that includes all relevant rules. The answer of it having a 4+ cover save ignores more of the relevant rules than when it is considered to have a 3+ since that only has the 3+ override the 4+ rule.

Except specific beats general, therefore the 4+ cover save specific rule beats the 3+ cover save general rule.

Good point. After all, the advanced rules an ADL, a Fortification with the terrain type Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines), are more specific than rules for a regular piece of Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines).

I'm looking at page 18 and I don't see the quote in the OP. Mine says, "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save. Further examples can be found in the Cover chart below and in the Battlefield Terrain section (see page 90)." The second sentence he has written there is instead found on page 109 - in other words, the link his quote makes between Purpose-built Fortifications (providing a 3+ cover save) and the fortifications on page 114 does not exist.

It seems clear that the ADL provides a 4+ cover save with a greater going to ground benefit and that some other, hypothetical, well-maintained fortification that you choose to include on your tabletop might be 3+.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm looking at page 18 and I don't see the quote in the OP. Mine says, "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save. Further examples can be found in the Cover chart below and in the Battlefield Terrain section (see page 90)." The second sentence he has written there is instead found on page 109 - in other words, the link his quote makes between Purpose-built Fortifications (providing a 3+ cover save) and the fortifications on page 114 does not exist.

It seems clear that the ADL provides a 4+ cover save with a greater going to ground benefit and that some other, hypothetical, well-maintained fortification that you choose to include on your tabletop might be 3+.

Is the ADL a purpose built fortification or is it not?

 warpspider89 wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm looking at page 18 and I don't see the quote in the OP. Mine says, "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save. Further examples can be found in the Cover chart below and in the Battlefield Terrain section (see page 90)." The second sentence he has written there is instead found on page 109 - in other words, the link his quote makes between Purpose-built Fortifications (providing a 3+ cover save) and the fortifications on page 114 does not exist.

It seems clear that the ADL provides a 4+ cover save with a greater going to ground benefit and that some other, hypothetical, well-maintained fortification that you choose to include on your tabletop might be 3+.

Is the ADL a purpose built fortification or is it not?

No. Page 114 only mentioned Fortifications, not Purpose-Built Fortifications.
And the ADL is listed as a Defence Line.

 warpspider89 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 warpspider89 wrote:
It seems to me like the best answer would be one that includes all relevant rules. The answer of it having a 4+ cover save ignores more of the relevant rules than when it is considered to have a 3+ since that only has the 3+ override the 4+ rule.

Except specific beats general, therefore the 4+ cover save specific rule beats the 3+ cover save general rule.

Good point. After all, the advanced rules an ADL, a Fortification with the terrain type Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines), are more specific than rules for a regular piece of Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines).

and therefore the specific ADL, a Fortification with the terrain type Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) cover save of 4+ wins out over the general fortification cover save.

 warpspider89 wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm looking at page 18 and I don't see the quote in the OP. Mine says, "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save. Further examples can be found in the Cover chart below and in the Battlefield Terrain section (see page 90)." The second sentence he has written there is instead found on page 109 - in other words, the link his quote makes between Purpose-built Fortifications (providing a 3+ cover save) and the fortifications on page 114 does not exist.

It seems clear that the ADL provides a 4+ cover save with a greater going to ground benefit and that some other, hypothetical, well-maintained fortification that you choose to include on your tabletop might be 3+.

Is the ADL a purpose built fortification or is it not?

No. Remember that the link the OP is drawing does not exist because his quote is incorrect (drawn from pages 90 pages apart). The book does not describe the ADL as a Purpose-built Fortification, as he has supposed. It describes it as a Battlefield Debris (Defense Lines).

Furthermore, the whole idea of a (Defense Lines) with a 3+ cover save is incoherent. The Defense Lines rule just makes the bonus from Going to Ground +2 instead of +1. It would be completely useless on an object with a 3+ save, making it clear that RAI is indeed that it is 4+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, I'd like to change my answer there. It might be a purpose-built fortification. It can certainly fit the wording a few ways. It's not clear if the term is meant to encompass something as unsubstantial as the defense line, but it might. The thing is, in this case there are rules telling us specifically what the cover save of an ADL is. The specific overrides the general. There is no rule that says we should treat the ADL as a Purpose-built Fortification as the quote the OP used to back this up does not actually appear in the book. Given that, the RAW is that it provides a 4+ save.

 warpspider89 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

They are clearly two different things since they have separate meanings.

The ADL is a fortification that has the terrain type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line). It is clearly such since it is listed under the BRB section: Fortifications (which indicates that it is a fortification [this is supported by the FOC page) and on its write up lists its terrain type as above.

By your logic the Imperial Bastion is not a fortification but instead is a building because that is its terrain type.

If you know the terrain type, then why do you insist on not using the rules for it? If the Terrain Type on the datasheet lists the terrain type as Battlefied Debris (Defense Lines), then you use those rules, not the catch-all rules listed at the beginning of the Cover section on page 40?

 McNinja wrote:

 warpspider89 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
I didn't misquote at all. Terrain Type: Fortification is simply a easier way to write "A piece of terrain that is a Fortification". My point remains very much valid.

Cover saves are determined by the type of terrain (or terrain type) that obscured the target.

The terrain type for the ADL is listed in the Datasheet as Defence Line. Therefore a 4+ save

You're choosing a type of terrain that is not listed as the ADL's terrain type to determine cover saves.

They are clearly two different things since they have separate meanings.

The ADL is a fortification that has the terrain type: Battlefield Debris (Defence Line). It is clearly such since it is listed under the BRB section: Fortifications (which indicates that it is a fortification [this is supported by the FOC page) and on its write up lists its terrain type as above.

By your logic the Imperial Bastion is not a fortification but instead is a building because that is its terrain type.

If you know the terrain type, then why do you insist on not using the rules for it? If the Terrain Type on the datasheet lists the terrain type as Battlefied Debris (Defense Lines), then you use those rules, not the catch-all rules listed at the beginning of the Cover section on page 40?

The Fortress of Redemption is a good example. The Terrain Type of that Fortification is Building. It should have a different cover type then shouldn't it?

My argument is essentially that a categorical mistake has been made. The Terrain Type and the Fortification classification have been viewed as one and the same but they are two different categories that cannot be compared.

Edit: And indeed I am using the rules on the data sheet. I am including that it is a Defence Line while also including the fact that it is a Fortification that has been listed in the Fortification Section. Now please stop attacking me. Attack the argument with the goal of providing a more comprehensive explanation that includes all relevant rules to the entry than I provided on page 5.

It's fairly obvious how the Fortifications work.

The "purpose-built fortifications" are an actual thing; if, say you are behind (not inside or on top of) a Bastion, you get a 3+ cover save, as per page 18, heading "Types of Cover Saves."

As per dilapidation rules, you can only use buildings as dilapidated fortifications. This is clear because of both the use of the word "buildings" and the bolded section stating that the armor value is 2 points lower than normal if not purchased in the Fortification slot on the FOC, as per page 96, under the heading "Fortifications and Dilapidation."

Remember, specific ALWAYS overrides general rules. The Terrain Type listed on the datasheet overrides and general rule because it is specific to the fortification in question, as per page 7, under the heading "Basic vs. Advanced."

 McNinja wrote:
It's fairly obvious how the Fortifications work.

The "purpose-built fortifications" are an actual thing; if, say you are behind (not inside or on top of) a Bastion, you get a 3+ cover save, as per page 18, heading "Types of Cover Saves."

As per dilapidation rules, you can only use buildings as dilapidated fortifications. This is clear because of both the use of the word "buildings" and the bolded section stating that the armor value is 2 points lower than normal if not purchased in the Fortification slot on the FOC, as per page 96, under the heading "Fortifications and Dilapidation."

Remember, specific ALWAYS overrides general rules. The Terrain Type listed on the datasheet overrides and general rule because it is specific to the fortification in question, as per page 7, under the heading "Basic vs. Advanced."

Yes and the equivalent of a dilapidated ADL is a regular Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines).

The advanced rules for the ADL includes it being a fortification and not just a certain type of battlefield debris.

But the ADL Fortification, Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) classification is more specific than a normal fortification.

Therefore you use the more specific Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) 4+ cover save rules and not the general fortification cover save rules.