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.

 Bausk wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, they were not using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner

Purpose-built fortifications is the same as purpose-built battlefield defenses, assuming you know the definition of fortifications. Since it was being argued that they were NOT the same, the English language definition was necessary to end that argument, as calling them different is a misuse of either word.

If it wasn't obvious to you, then perhaps my definition that I posted was helpful after all, because it was very obvious to me.

I'll indulge you for the moment. What page of the advanced rules state that the ADL, or any fortification; purpose built or otherwise, has a 3+ cover save again?

Read the thread, and the pages previously cited. I'm not going to repeat myself for the umteenth time.

WE're not asking you to repeat yourself - we're asking for a page quote from the advanced rules, and not the basic rules.

You arent getting that Fortification != fortification, same as attack != Attack. One refers to a terrain group, ther other a slot in the FOC


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WE're not asking you to repeat yourself - we're asking for a page quote from the advanced rules, and not the basic rules.

You arent getting that Fortification != fortification, same as attack != Attack. One refers to a terrain group, ther other a slot in the FOC

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You arent getting that Fortification != fortification, same as attack != Attack. One refers to a terrain group, ther other a slot in the FOC

But there is no such terrain group, and if you say there is, prove it.

The FoC fortification is readily defined. This mythical terrain group you speak of is nowhere to be found.

Ah, so youre refusing to provide the page numbers requested?

Thanks for conceding.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, they were not using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner

Purpose-built fortifications is the same as purpose-built battlefield defenses, assuming you know the definition of fortifications.

A minefield is a purpouse-built battlefield defense, but not a purpouse-built fortification. All purpouse-built fortifications are purpouse-built battlefield defenses, but not all purpouse-built battlefield defenses are purpouse-built fortifications.

Okay, I get that the thread about the ADL getting a 3+ save was locked, but after 7 pages in that thread, there is seriously nothing new being said.

I get that the ADL argument is tangentially related to the 'advanced' vs. 'basic' concept, but realistically that is just being used as an excuse to continue the argument.

SO PLEASE STOP DISCUSSING THE ADL ARGUMENT.

Let it go, please. I will be deleting any and all posts on that topic after this one and those who continue to do so will be disciplined.

 yakface wrote:

Okay, I get that the thread about the ADL getting a 3+ save was locked, but after 7 pages in that thread, there is seriously nothing new being said.

I get that the ADL argument is tangentially related to the 'advanced' vs. 'basic' concept, but realistically that is just being used as an excuse to continue the argument.

SO PLEASE STOP DISCUSSING THE ADL ARGUMENT.

Let it go, please. I will be deleting any and all posts on that topic after this one and those who continue to do so will be disciplined.

Sorry Yak, will do right after this reply.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, they were not using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner

Purpose-built fortifications is the same as purpose-built battlefield defenses, assuming you know the definition of fortifications. Since it was being argued that they were NOT the same, the English language definition was necessary to end that argument, as calling them different is a misuse of either word.

If it wasn't obvious to you, then perhaps my definition that I posted was helpful after all, because it was very obvious to me.

I'll indulge you for the moment. What page of the advanced rules state that the ADL, or any fortification; purpose built or otherwise, has a 3+ cover save again?

Read the thread, and the pages previously cited. I'm not going to repeat myself for the umteenth time.

You mean in your OP on the locked thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/520287.page where the only page you cite that's close to relevant to my question is in the basic rules section? Then, yes I have read it; yes the whole thread. And I even replied to it stating where you're going wrong. So unless you can provide the page number with advanced rule stating that ADL, or fortifications as a whole, are a 3+ cover save then you are simply wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
So would something like the Deathwing Assault special rule which only applies to certain Dark Angels units be considered an Advanced rule?

Erm, that's from a codex, right? Anything in a codex doesn't have to worry about basic vs advanced, because all rules in the codex trump both.

Many here have argued they dont.

Could you misrepresent people more?

Codex trumps BRB when there's a conflict. That's in the actual rules instead of what you want to pretend. If there's no conflict the BRB wins.

So you do not believe that "..all rules in the codex trump both" ?

I can say with a guarantee that all rules in a codex do not always trump the BRB. It's an absolutely false statement.

you don't do you? So how have I misrepresented you?

People have argued (truthfully) that you need a conflict to override the rule book.
You implied that people were taking an unreasonable (and incorrect) stance.

Oh but in answer to your question, yes I can misrepresent people more, since I have not have misrepresented anyone in this case, I am sure I could do better than zero.

You absolutely did. You can pretend you meant something else, but your implication is pretty clear.

Saying that the codex will always win (especially in reference to DWA) is just absolutely false. Just like the actual rules say.

I think you may have read too much into it.

I didn't imply anything. I asked would DWA be considered and "advanced" rule and betray answered and I replied to his post.

What do you think i was implying?

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Saying that the codex will always win (especially in reference to DWA) is just absolutely false. Just like the actual rules say.

I think you may have read too much into it.

I didn't imply anything. I asked would DWA be considered and "advanced" rule and betray answered and I replied to his post.

What do you think i was implying?

The implication of your question (and followup answer) is that people who disagree with your interpretation are not applying the rules correctly (as if they were, they would not argue that the codex loses to the BRB in cases where there's no conflict).
That's false, and you know that's false as we've had the DWA discussion in person. Hence me saying you're misrepresenting.
Saying that, and I'll quote so you understand where I'm coming from, "all rules in the codex trump both [Basic and Advanced]" is factually wrong. You appeared to support that it was correct when you said, "Many here have argued they dont." That statement is also factually wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Saying that the codex will always win (especially in reference to DWA) is just absolutely false. Just like the actual rules say.

I think you may have read too much into it.

I didn't imply anything. I asked would DWA be considered and "advanced" rule and betray answered and I replied to his post.

What do you think i was implying?

The implication of your question (and followup answer) is that people who disagree with your interpretation are not applying the rules correctly (as if they were, they would not argue that the codex loses to the BRB in cases where there's no conflict).
That's false, and you know that's false as we've had the DWA discussion in person. Hence me saying you're misrepresenting.
Saying that, and I'll quote so you understand where I'm coming from, "all rules in the codex trump both [Basic and Advanced]" is factually wrong. You appeared to support that it was correct when you said, "Many here have argued they dont." That statement is also factually wrong.

Wow, a person can't simply ask a question about a rule without there being some implication?

Asking a question is fine.
Phrasing is important, especially in a written (ie - non-verbal) communication medium.

@Bausk: Please see pg 1 of this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/520287.page page references were provided by BetrayTheWorld in the very first post.

Yakface's breakdown of rules interpretation is pretty good, and he does make a good argument for "specific vs general" which I've historically agreed with. Although, the book does use the words "advanced vs basic" which isn't always a direct correlation.

The problem is that the rules interleave quite a bit between various brb and codex rules. Which makes it difficult to follow the trail. When an "advanced" or "codex" rule doesn't completely override a basic rule but rather just modifies parts of it, sometimes even just part of the sentence, then we can easily have lots of confusion.

On the topic of the ADL specifically, I agree with Insaniak in that it's a mess. I believe it's a mess because they are providing rules for things that can appear on a table without having been purchased (dilapidated bastions, the Imperial Defense Network aka trenches, defense lines, etc) while allowing at least some of these to be purchasable items to fit into a force slot called "fortifications".

Now, why would you purchase a Bastion, for example, if you could simply plop one down during terrain placement without paying for it? Well, because you get a better save, better AV, and the ability to buy a gun for the top of it. The point is that there are two ways of thinking about these models which change their characteristics. Either as dilapidated terrain (which costs nothing and can be placed on a table when you are placing hills/trees) or as a fortification (has a cost and defined time to place). The bastion is pretty straight forward, but what about the ADL? Is it's spec's due to it being a regular piece of terrain you can place or are those specs only for use if it takes up a FOC slot?

With those questions in mind, I can see BetrayTheWorld's point of view about the 3+ simply due to the words "purpose built" on pg 18. It seems that "purpose built" ought to fit in with purposely paying for it as a FOC selection. However, the 4+ due to the units type and direction for usage argument is pretty "advanced" as well. I'm not going to pick a side as both seem to have decent RAW support for their opinions.

So, what does this have to do with the main topic?

The point is we have 2 "advanced" circumstances that are very nearly on the same level with each other and conflict. The only conflict resolution we've been given is if one of those rules appears in a codex, which neither do. Which leads to the last resolution available: roll for it.

 Bausk wrote:

You mean in your OP on the locked thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/520287.page where the only page you cite that's close to relevant to my question is in the basic rules section? Then, yes I have read it; yes the whole thread. And I even replied to it stating where you're going wrong. So unless you can provide the page number with advanced rule stating that ADL, or fortifications as a whole, are a 3+ cover save then you are simply wrong.

Before you ever posted this reply, I posted the relevent page number and quotes, but my reply was deleted. And there are several quotes in my OP that you pointed out that are outside of those pages of "Basic" rules, and thus would be "Advanced" if reading it that way.

Unfortunately I cannot discuss this further as Yak has made clear we're not allowed to discuss that specific topic.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

You mean in your OP on the locked thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/520287.page where the only page you cite that's close to relevant to my question is in the basic rules section? Then, yes I have read it; yes the whole thread. And I even replied to it stating where you're going wrong. So unless you can provide the page number with advanced rule stating that ADL, or fortifications as a whole, are a 3+ cover save then you are simply wrong.

Before you ever posted this reply, I posted the relevent page number and quotes, but my reply was deleted. And there are several quotes in my OP that you pointed out that are outside of those pages of "Basic" rules, and thus would be "Advanced" if reading it that way.

Unfortunately I cannot discuss this further as Yak has made clear we're not allowed to discuss that specific topic.

On this thread yes, but by all means PM me the details.