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:

 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.

I do see what you're getting at. The ADL is the only fortification in the section that actually describes its cover save - it's inconsistent with the others, which more or less describe the properties of the fortification for purposes of movement and defense. However, it says it's a "Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines)" and with your interpretation the Defence Lines part would be silly - you can't improve your cover save past 2+, so it might as well just be a "Battlefield Debris (Barricades and Walls)", which would have the exact same effect.

So I guess we are left with two possibilities:
- RAI is that the Defence Lines are 4+ save and Going to Ground gives you 2+ behind the ADL
- the writers made a mistake and gave it a redundant special rule and it's meant to have a 3+ save

I think the first is more likely, especially given that being bought as a Fortification for the purpose of the army list does not necessarily mean the ADL is what the writers had in mind as "Purpose-built Fortification." That suggests to me more of a building or, well, something more permanent than a bunch of interlocking shields. But it's possible.

 warpspider89 wrote:

 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.

That is entirely wrong. The SPECIFIC rules, i.e the terrain type. supercedes the Purpose Built cover save rule. Also, there is no rule allowing you to use a dilapdated ADL as a defense line. You can only have dilapidated buildings, that is things with an Armor Value. Battlefield Debris does not have any Armor Value, so you cannot use it as a dilapidated building. You can however, just use it as a Defense Line if your opponent oks it and you follow the rules for placing terrain.

What s/he's saying is it's possible the Terrain Type isn't intended to say anything about the cover save, as none of the other Fortifications in the section describe the cover save at all - that it's just intended to describe the properties for movement and firing. I think it's more likely the section is just inconsistent in its use, but there it is.

So according to the OP, there also should be a terrain type: Bloodthorn Hedge.

Maybe the ADL is a Fortification that should be giving a 3+ cover save. But p.114 tells us at Terrain Type: "This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your fortification."
This does not mean that you can use a part of those specific terrain type rules while ignoring another part of those same rules. You need to use the full rules for that terrain type (thus including the 4+ cover save for barricades and walls).
This also means that the Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris (Defence lines) is a more specific (advanced) rule than the (basic) 3+ save for fortifications.

Now let's look at P.7 Basic versus Advanced: "where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
thus meaning that the 4+ cover save overrides the 3+ cover save granted by the ADL.

So even if there was no difference between the fortifications (as in uses up a fortification slot) and fortification used in Terrain Type, the ADL would still grant a 4+ cover save.

I think this discussion could use some further examples. I think the best one being the landing pad.

If I am on top with the walls/shielded up, I am granted a 4+ invul save. However, if I have a model behind the wall that obscures it by 25%, would I not get a 3+ cover save since I am obscured by a fortification? This is per the advocates that adl gives a 3+ cover save. However, if I were to be hit with a template weapon I would still get a 4+ invul save, right?

I need to get me a landing pad if that's the case.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
What s/he's saying is it's possible the Terrain Type isn't intended to say anything about the cover save, as none of the other Fortifications in the section describe the cover save at all - that it's just intended to describe the properties for movement and firing. I think it's more likely the section is just inconsistent in its use, but there it is.

That's exactly what I think the OP, and for certain myself as well, are trying to get get at. It seems to me that the cover safe is the same across for all Fortifications, since they are all fortifications, and each as a rule subset affecting its use based on its terrain type.

I feel like that view is the most all encompassing of all presented rules and therefore is the best answer.

I agree that the interpretation that I am presenting would make the 2+ for Go To Ground redundant for the ADL, but it would still be important for use of neutral ADLs right? Those ones would give a 4+, rather than a 3+, cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 imweasel wrote:
I think this discussion could use some further examples. I think the best one being the landing pad.

If I am on top with the walls/shielded up, I am granted a 4+ invul save. However, if I have a model behind the wall that obscures it by 25%, would I not get a 3+ cover save since I am obscured by a fortification? This is per the advocates that adl gives a 3+ cover save. However, if I were to be hit with a template weapon I would still get a 4+ invul save, right?

I need to get me a landing pad if that's the case.

I think that you are right. The skyshield landing pad is a fortification and all fortifications that are paid for by a player provide a 3+ cover save provided that the models using it fits the appropriate requirements. Further, it will provide the 4+ invulnerable.

Based on what your advocating, why would a neutral fortification ever grant a cover save besides a 3+?

dilapedated affects armour value, and armour value only,
and only on buildings,

you are making up a 2nd profile for the aegis defense line,

RAW is the specific rule that applies to defence lines is a 4+ cover save,

end of story,
making up rules about dilapidated defence lines, is making up rules, not playing RAW.

units behind a defence line, get a 4+, thats the specific rule for this specific unit, overriding the general fortification rule (also your assuption that aegis is a fort at all, is not proven)

there is no such thing as a neutral, or dilapidated defence line, that is made up.

ignoring what the terrain type, and the rules that go with it,

is ignoring rules, not something allowed out side of house rules

 imweasel wrote:
Based on what your advocating, why would a neutral fortification ever grant a cover save besides a 3+?

Because they want an extra .1667% chance to save a model that has a 3+ save already.

but they don't want to give it to everyone.

You know, 6th ed was the time of 5+ cover saves. Why would they suddenly allow 3+ cover saves in such abundance? They're not that stupid...

easysauce wrote:
dilapedated affects armour value, and armour value only, and only on buildings, you are making up a 2nd profile for the aegis defense line, RAW is the specific rule that applies to defence lines is a 4+ cover save, end of story, making up rules about dilapidated defence lines, is making up rules, not playing RAW. units behind a defence line, get a 4+, thats the specific rule for this specific unit, overriding the general fortification rule (also your assuption that aegis is a fort at all, is not proven) there is no such thing as a neutral, or dilapidated defence line, that is made up. ignoring what the terrain type, and the rules that go with it, is ignoring rules, not something allowed out side of house rules

The answer is also easysauce. Dilapitated buildings are ruins, not fortifications. Therefore, they provide a 4+, not a 3+, cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 imweasel wrote:
Based on what your advocating, why would a neutral fortification ever grant a cover save besides a 3+?

Because they want an extra .1667% chance to save a model that has a 3+ save already.

but they don't want to give it to everyone.

You know, 6th ed was the time of 5+ cover saves. Why would they suddenly allow 3+ cover saves in such abundance? They're not that stupid...

Attacking people is ad homonym even when it is passive aggression. Personally, I am arguing because I believe this is the correct answer. It isn't for me. It is for everyone who chooses to use an ADL.

As for the abundance comment, 3+ cover saves wouldn't be in "abundance" in the sense that they would fill a given battle. It's not like any piece of terrain provides them. Only bought fortifications would provide that good of a cover save. It actually makes complete sense from a GW standpoint because it encourages players to buy their fortifications rather than using regular terrain.

 warpspider89 wrote:
Dilapitated buildings are ruins, not fortifications.

Dilapidated fortifications are Dilapidated fortifications. There is no such thing as a "Dilapitated building".

You have buildings, ruins and Dilapidated fortifications as terrain (Amongst the other types of terrain). (P. 96 describes Dilapidated fortifications)

"You might also use some of the fortifications as 'neutral'buildings on the battlefield. in this case, simply treat all fortifications not bought for either you or your opponent's army as being dilapidated. A dilapidated fortification has 2 fewer points of Armour Value on each facing than is normal for a building of its type. Furthermore, its emplaced weapons cannot be fired." P. 96

Only when you are using a fortification as a "'neutral'buildings on the battlefield" do they count as dilapidated.

Regular buildings, that are not the Bastion or FoR are assigned an AV as normal when you and your opponent discuss terrain elements.

imweasel wrote:I think this discussion could use some further examples. I think the best one being the landing pad.
If I am on top with the walls/shielded up, I am granted a 4+ invul save. However, if I have a model behind the wall that obscures it by 25%, would I not get a 3+ cover save since I am obscured by a fortification? This is per the advocates that adl gives a 3+ cover save. However, if I were to be hit with a template weapon I would still get a 4+ invul save, right?
I need to get me a landing pad if that's the case.

That's all correct.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:What s/he's saying is it's possible the Terrain Type isn't intended to say anything about the cover save, as none of the other Fortifications in the section describe the cover save at all - that it's just intended to describe the properties for movement and firing.

Again, correct.

imweasel wrote:Based on what your advocating, why would a neutral fortification ever grant a cover save besides a 3+?

Because by definition(from the FoC section), if it is neutral, then it is not a fortification and follows the standard rules for it's terrain type.



@ Those mentioning that I haven't posted in awhile, I work 3rd shift, and had to sleep. Thanks for your concern.

 Jackal wrote:

Surely though, if everyone plays it nothing like you do, then theres a pretty damn good chance your playing it wrong

There are sheep, there are shepherds, and there are wolves.

One believes your statement, one purports to believe your statement, and one eats sheep. Which are you?

None of those choices, as I reject your false tetrachotomy - yet another logical fallacy you have committed

Fortification, the FOC slot, != purpose built fortification. Which you are claiming is the case, therefore you are autoamtically wrong.

Your argument is still disproven, so can you before posting again please follow the tenets, and provide some rules quotes otherwise?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:What s/he's saying is it's possible the Terrain Type isn't intended to say anything about the cover save, as none of the other Fortifications in the section describe the cover save at all - that it's just intended to describe the properties for movement and firing.

Again, correct.

Please give me an exact rules quote in the fortification section, relevant to the ADL that tells me that I am to only use the terrain type for movement.

Currently, I'm reading, quite clearly (and explicitly)

BRB, Page 114, Terrain Type wrote:
This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your fortification. This can be anything from a line of Barricades to a large building.

Please tell me exactly where in that text, the only text that tells me what terrain rules to use with fortifications, it says "these only apply to movement".

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

imweasel wrote:Based on what your advocating, why would a neutral fortification ever grant a cover save besides a 3+?

Because by definition(from the FoC section), if it is neutral, then it is not a fortification and follows the standard rules for it's terrain type.

@ Those mentioning that I haven't posted in awhile, I work 3rd shift, and had to sleep. Thanks for your concern.

Please give me a direct quote from the "Chosing your army section" that tells me that these buildings are neutral.

The only thing even remotely relevant is in Fortifications and Dilapidation, which specifically refers to Buildings.

I'll even quote it:

BRB, Page 96, Fortifications and Dilapidation wrote:
In the chosing your army section (page 108), you'll see that you can add some buildings to your army, allowing your troops to deploy and fight from a strong position.
You might also use some of the fortifications as 'neutral' buildings on the battlefield.

This is the only reference to dilapidation, or to neutral terrain.

And we already have a definition of building. It needs to be:

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

This refers to the rules of "Buildings section" so, between 92 and 97.

Please stop ignoring these points and calling them old evidence. They are blatantly written in the rulebook and rather than adress them, you've done nothing but complain that we've brought up the same (very valid and definitive) evidence, waiting for you to actually do something with them.

You can't ignore these holes in your argument, no matter how much you want to.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:


There are sheep, there are shepherds, and there are wolves.

One believes your statement, one purports to believe your statement, and one eats sheep. Which are you?

I'm pretty sure you mean "Choses to Follow the statement" here, as purport simply means "Claims to follow". Do you mean to say that Sheepherders pretend to follow?
Because I'm pretty sure the statement calls for shepherders to lead rather than follow anyway. Also, common convention is important in a board game that's based on social interaction.
You can't go around eating your opponents because they don't agree with you.

So, in fact I believe there are three classes of players:

1. The kind that read the rulebook for what it says and does their best to emulate the rulebooks rules.
2. The kind that is told how to read the rulebook for what it says (or that simply asks a question when they don't know.)

and then there's people like you. 3. The kind who model a Trygon charging forward, not because it looks cool, but because you shave 2" off the silhouette. The people who fight against the grain, make enemies for themselves and insult other people, just to get a survival rate increase of 16.667% on toy soldiers.

Everyone is not doing Aegis Defense Lines wrong, you have a misconception and you refuse to admit it is wrong. It is explicitly stated within the context of the model entry for the ADLs that they're Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) and that they're meant to be used in that way, but you refuse to admit this. You just want to have your little argument so you can call yourself a wolf.

Good luck getting a game from anyone who actually understands these rules.

Now, I know you don't like to respond to me, because you think I'm a goblin and all, but your argument cannot be sound [/b]until[b] you address these problems, you cannot cite those evidences. They are not relevant to aegis defence lines.

So things in the Fortification FOC have the fortification Terrain type, that means that according to you vehicles in the fast attack slot are al fast vehicles even if their profile says not. And all vehicles in a heavy support slot are Heavy vehicles.
This is basically what you are saying.

You're half right, in a sense.

Let me re-quote your OP Rules quotes.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Aegis Defense Lines Provide a 3+ cover save. Here's why:

Games Workshop wrote: BRB, pg 109, Fortification: This section of the Force Organization chart represents purpose-built, battlefield defenses.

BRB pg 18, Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and most other things confer a4+ or 5+ cover save. Unlike units, fortifications are not found in codexes. Instead, you'Il find a selection presented in this book (see page 114).
Cover CHART
Razor wire 6+
Forests and area terrain 5+
Ruined fortifications 4+
Fortifications 3+

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

BRB, pg 120, Placing fortifications, Players must place any fortifications they have before placing any other terrain.

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.

BRB, Pg 96, FORTIFICATIONS AND DILAPIDATION
In the choosing your Army section(pg. 108) you'll see that you can add some buildings to your army, allowing your troops to deploy in and fight from a strong position. You might also use some of the fortifications as 'neutral' buildings on the battlefield. In this case, simply treat all fortifications not bought for either you or your opponent's army as being dilapidated.

For the purposes of ADL in the full or advanced rules you only use the rules relevant to its Datasheet. In the Basic rules all fortifications are classified as a 3+. Now this does not preclude the ADL from being a fortification, only that it has advanced rules that are not covered by the basic blanket 'All fortifications are a 3+ cover save' basic rule. The advanced rules are covered on its Data sheet, as has been stated numerous times, which they follow the Advanced terrain rules for Walls and Barricades; giving them a 4+ cover save. In addition to that any unit that goes to ground behind an ADL receives +2 to the cover save rather than the usual +1. Placing Fortifications only applies to the placement of any terrain bought for your Fortification FoC Slot.

The problem you are having is you are not distinguishing the difference between the FoC slot Fortifications, Basic rules Reference to Fortifications and Advanced rules reference to Fortifications. As you have found they lead to some odd clashes of rules that make no sense...even by GWs standards

So lets go over it once again.

-Use of the word Fortifications: All pertain to terrain bought for the FoC slot. But if they have a type or not is covered in the advanced rules.

-Basic Rules: All fortifications are a 3+ cover save.

-Advanced Rules: See the Data Sheet and refer the relevant pages as per its Terrain Type. For example the ADL is listed as; Pg 114 Terrain Type: Defense Lines. Which we are then listed as; Pg104 Defense Lines: 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.

As you can see there is a big difference between the Basic and Advanced rule set.

And yes, before you accuse me of not reading the whole thread; I have. I find it amusing that you scream straw man at people who quote the only rules that are relevant to the advanced rules for the ADL; Yet your entire argument is based on a straw man principle that we read and use rules that have no gravity on the situation....like I said...amusing.

 Esparoba3 wrote:
So things in the Fortification FOC have the fortification Terrain type, that means that according to you vehicles in the fast attack slot are al fast vehicles even if their profile says not. And all vehicles in a heavy support slot are Heavy vehicles.
This is basically what you are saying.

You're far better at imparting a logical reduction than our OP is at calling Logical fallacy.

Interestingly, on Page 89 there is a picture with examples of different types of terrain. Included is an ADL with Gun.

The description says the players have agreed to use the gun emplacements rule, seeing as there is a gun in this line. Clearly it wasn't bought by anyone, just placed on the field.

I have no idea who this helps, if anyone.

After reading more of the Rules and skimming over new arguments, I have reached the conclusion that:
GW really didn't think this one through at all, and it's almost impossible to be sure what was meant and what is definitely allowed... And I'm usually fine playing RAI.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
Interestingly, on Page 89 there is a picture with examples of different types of terrain. Included is an ADL with Gun.

The description says the players have agreed to use the gun emplacements rule, seeing as there is a gun in this line. Clearly it wasn't bought by anyone, just placed on the field.

I have no idea who this helps, if anyone.

After reading more of the Rules and skimming over new arguments, I have reached the conclusion that:
GW really didn't think this one through at all, and it's almost impossible to be sure what was meant and what is definitely allowed... And I'm usually fine playing RAI.

The rules are fairly explicit. ADLs make use of the Battlefield Debris: Defence Lines rules, which, aside from adding a bonus for going to ground, are the same as walls, giving us a 4+ cover save.

What OP is doing is trying to take two rules which are neither explicitly related nor intended to be related (the ones found on page 18, and the ones found on 96 and in the fortifications section), mash them all together to get a final result which is not at all how the rulebook was intended.

There is a simple, clear way to play ADLs that Betray is refusing to use simplicity.

In the word of Tolstoy,

There is no greatness where there is not simplicity, goodness and truth.

There is no simplicity in what Betray is Arguing.
There is no goodness in what Betray is Arguing - he's using this to gain an advantage that is realistically uncalled for.
Finally, there is no truth to what he's saying. And he won't even address the explicit evidence to his contrary.

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

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

Some people 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.

Because by definition(from the FoC section), if it is neutral, then it is not a fortification and follows the standard rules for it's terrain type.

What? This makes no sense at all. If it's neutral, it's not a purchased fortification, but it's still a fortification.

I'd be interested in someone posting, with page quote, the cover save of a medium or small building.

 warpspider89 wrote:
I'd be interested in someone posting, with page quote, the cover save of a medium or small building.

Small wooden building?
Medium Armoured Plascrete building?
Cover saves depend on what is obscuring the target. As with all terrain that's not defined, it's up to you and your opponent to determine before the battle starts. Look at the terrain piece and work out the appropriate save. This is the very basis of how cover saves work.
What do think would be an appropriate save granted by a heavily armoured building?

 warpspider89 wrote:
I'd be interested in someone posting, with page quote, the cover save of a medium or small building.

Why would we do that?
The discussion is about ADL and Defence Lines are clearly addressed in the 'Battlefield Debris'-part as having a 4+ cover save.

Unless the FAQ it saying its a 3+ im never going to argue for it because its one of those "rule weaving" things to get a 3+ cover.

It says its a Battlefield Debris (Defense Line) not a Fortification under the Terrain Type when you purchase it from the BRB. Going to wtf those two types mean, its a 4+.

Im a stickler for cover save rules because its pretty much the only save i ever get as an ork player, and even i say its not a 3+ lol. Actually aside from the vehicle being partically behind a purchased Bastian i dont know wth would cause the 3+ save anyway as the top of one sure doesnt.

People keep arguing that the ADL has specific rules, but it doesn't. It just has a generic terrain type listed on it's data sheet, like every other fortification. You have to refer to another section of the book to find anything that says 4+. And in the section on cover, it says fortifications confer 3+. It refers to the ADL as both a fortification and defense line on the same page(114). If you want specific quotes and page numbers nos, see the first page. Nothing has really changed from when I first posted it.

I'm mostly getting the run around from 2 guys who post over and over again in the thread. There aren't nearly as many people posting disagreement as it looks like, because half the pages are 2 guys talking. And I said, about 5 pages ago that I wouldn't be responding to them any more, because when I DO quote a page number, and do the work to dig up the information, they ignore it like I never said it to begin with, then just loudly post over and over that the quote I quoted doesn't exist to drown out the truth in pages and pages of garbage. I've listed page numbers. People can read for themselves now.

This thread seems to have gone as far as it can productively go, and the rules summed up pretty comprehensively.