How do you play it? Aegis Defense Line

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.

**Jimsolo**

This thread interested me.

While the original (locked) thread covers both arguments rather extensively (and at times vitriolically) I am interested to know how the number bear out.

EDIT: This isn't intended to be a thread for a rules discussion. The original thread contains seven pages of that, and it is doubtful that anyone on either side can contribute anything new to the discussion. For the sake of brevity, I will provide the relative rules that are being discussed. By all means add something if you have something meaningful (and friendly!) to provide, but the rules have already been discussed ad nauseum.

The Rules 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.

How do you play the Aegis Defense line?

**Nem**

I read the thread at the time. I kept out of it, seeing merrits on both side.
How we play it is 4+. 100PNTS for 4+ place-where-you-like guarenteed cover is fine, really.

;Edit; With 3+ I could run a better Nid Warrior based army though

**PrinceRaven**

I play it as a 4+ beccause if you look on rules for an Aegis Defence Line on page 114 it says

"Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris: (Defence lines).

So you go to the rules for Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines) on page 104

"Defence lines follow all the same rules for barricades and walls
except that a unit that decides to Go to Ground behind a defence
line gains+ 2 to its covers saver rather than +l"

And right there on the same page it gives you the barricades and walls rules which state

"If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a 4+ cover save."

The people claiming it's a 3+ are quoting page 18 which gives you the basic cover chart which state

"Fortifications 3+"

and they'd be right if an ADL stated "Terrain Type: Fortifications", but it doesn't, so they're not. Logic is a wonderful thing.

**Enceladus**

Battlefield Debris conveys a 4+ cover save. Defence lines are specified as Battlefield Debris in the rule book. I don't see where there's a grey area. If people are that desperate for a better cover save then just go to ground behind it for a 2+ cover save. Job done.

**Hans_Einberg**

its pretty cut and dry...i dont see why there is an issue with it really...

P.114 and 104 have all the answers.
I cant find anywhere that mentions 3+. Except for the 3++ shield generator.

**grendel083**

Holy Emperor, can we not bring this topic up again?

**Jimsolo**

Sorry, I should have clarified: I'm not really interested in a discussion of the rules. I linked a thread that contains all the arguments both for and against, so there isn't a reason to go over them again. I'm just interested in getting some cold hard numbers to find out who comes down on which side of that particular issue.

Thanks for responding!

**dkellyj**

Based on the BRB rules for Battlefield Debris with the "Defense Line" specs...your getting 4+ normal with a 2+ for going to ground.
The exception being the Gun itself having a normal armor save of 3+ with the 4+ cover being available for low AP shots at the gun (assuming the shot came across the ADL and not from behind...melta wolf-scouts and the like coming from the sides and/or back edge).

(EDIT) And while the unit firing the gun can GTG for the 2+, the gun itself can not. Also noting that the gun and the unit firing the gun are seperate units and can not be targeted together (although pie-plates and blasts can give you incidental hits on one or the other depending on placement, scatter, etc).

**culsandar**

4+ obviously.

I think it is hilarious that there are more than double the people who haven't even read the thread that think it is a 4+, which is the correct answer, than those that had read the thread and think it's a 3+.

**TheKbob**

Is the Skyshield Landing Pad a 3+ cover save?

**DeathReaper**

TheKbob wrote:
Is the Skyshield Landing Pad a 3+ cover save?

Wrong thread maybe?

This thread is for the Aegis Defense Line and How do you play it.

**Peregrine**

Don't feel like reading a 7-page thread because the rules are perfectly clear on this.

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.

Specific overrules general. A general un-specified fortification is a 3+ cover save, but the ADL rules explicitly say that it uses different rules and grants a 4+ cover save. End of discussion.

**Henrythesecond**

Peregrine wrote:
Don't feel like reading a 7-page thread because the rules are perfectly clear on this.

Specific overrules general. A general un-specified fortification is a 3+ cover save, but the ADL rules explicitly say that it uses different rules and grants a 4+ cover save. End of discussion.

No, no, Peregrine. You see, it'll NEVER be 'End of Discussion' on the topic, and the rules are NOT 'perfectly clear'. And that is simply because there is seemingly a different interpretation. Rightly or wrongly, for good or bad, with whatever motivation, other folk have a different opinion.

And no matter how contrived and foolish it is to consider giving the Aegis Defence Line a 3+ Cover Save, we must not deny individuals the right to have their voice heard. For that way lies darkness, my friend.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

I actually thought it was a 3+ save before I read the thread, because I hadn't noticed that it was meant to be 4+ and knew fortifications were meant to be 3+ from the shooting section. After the events of the thread I felt like it was clear enough that it's meant to be 4+, though the whole thing could be explained better in the book.

**Purifier**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I actually thought it was a 3+ save before I read the thread, because I hadn't noticed that it was meant to be 4+ and knew fortifications were meant to be 3+ from the shooting section. After the events of the thread I felt like it was clear enough that it's meant to be 4+, though the whole thing could be explained better in the book.

As with most things.
I don't remember the WHFB BRB being even close to as messy as the current 40k is when I played FB back in the early nineties.
How hard would it be to just write next to it "confers a 4+ cover save to anyone crouching behind it like a little girl."

No, no. We have to make everything referential. it's a Borne Again Christian. See page 666 for rules. Borne Again Christian: Confers special rules Never a Glutton and One With the Light. See pages 1000 and 8009. AND ON WE GO. It irks me, that's all I'm saying.

**Peregrine**

Henrythesecond wrote:
No, no, Peregrine. You see, it'll NEVER be 'End of Discussion' on the topic, and the rules are NOT 'perfectly clear'.

Yes they are. It says explicitly what cover save you get. There's about as much "ambiguity" as there is in debating whether bolters are STR 4 or STR 10.

**DarknessEternal**

Purifier wrote:

I don't remember the WHFB BRB being even close to as messy as the current 40k is when I played FB back in the early nineties.

The early nineties didn't have an internet full of people who read the rules they way they want rather than what they say.

**Purifier**

DarknessEternal wrote:
Purifier wrote:

I don't remember the WHFB BRB being even close to as messy as the current 40k is when I played FB back in the early nineties.

The early nineties didn't have an internet full of people who read the rules they way they want rather than what they say.

Although that is certainly true, I had my own issues with 40k before I got on dakkadakka.

When I played WHFB, I used to be able to almost cite every rule in it, and each one seemed to make sense with the previous rule. It was a logical following of rules. I don't have that with 40k.

Obviously, I may be seeing it through the fog of nostalgia, but even if I am, shouldn't GW be able to write something decent with the experience they have to draw on? It still irks me, that's all.

**DarknessEternal**

Purifier wrote:

Obviously, I may be seeing it through the fog of nostalgia,

That's 90% of the justification of your view on the matter. The other 10% is probably that you understand wargaming better now which allows you to see the holes.

No edition of fantasy battles has ever had less cumbersome rules than any edition of 40k.

**BetrayTheWorld**

Peregrine wrote:

There's about as much "ambiguity" as there is in debating whether bolters are STR 4 or STR 10.

This statement would be true if it said bolters were Str 4 on one page, then said that they were Str 10 on another.

The ambiguity in this comes from the fact that every reference to the ADL refers to it as a fortification, purpose-built fortification, or purpose-built battlefield defense. Purpose-built fortifications give a 3+ cover save per the cover section.

The ADL also has a generic terrain type of Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines). As we all know, terrain types involved several various rules dependent upon type(not just cover save). In the terrain type section, it's generic terrain type offers a 4+ cover save.

There are many pieces of terrain that are/could be classified as Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines), but only one of them is considered a fortification: the Aegis Defense Line. Arguments can be made for both sides, and no one can "win" the argument without input from GW because the rules are in conflict with neither of them specifically categorized as a "Basic" rule. I encourage you to email GW questions on this so that hopefully they FAQ it. I've already sent mine, and was disappointed to see that nothing about it was included in the recent FAQ update.

**Pyrian**

>90% say 4+. I don't think we could get that kind of consensus that 2+2=4.

**Lord Yayula**

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

There's about as much "ambiguity" as there is in debating whether bolters are STR 4 or STR 10.

This statement would be true if it said bolters were Str 4 on one page, then said that they were Str 10 on another.

The ambiguity in this comes from the fact that every reference to the ADL refers to it as a fortification, purpose-built fortification, or purpose-built battlefield defense. Purpose-built fortifications give a 3+ cover save per the cover section.

The ADL also has a generic terrain type of Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines). As we all know, terrain types involved several various rules dependent upon type(not just cover save). In the terrain type section, it's generic terrain type offers a 4+ cover save.

There are many pieces of terrain that are/could be classified as Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines), but only one of them is considered a fortification: the Aegis Defense Line. Arguments can be made for both sides, and no one can "win" the argument without input from GW because the rules are in conflict with neither of them specifically categorized as a "Basic" rule. I encourage you to email GW questions on this so that hopefully they FAQ it. I've already sent mine, and was disappointed to see that nothing about it was included in the recent FAQ update.

It is just the name of the FoC section where you can purchase the ADL, that doesn't mean anything you pick will be classified as a fortification. It is like saying that any havoc/devastator squad armed with plasmaguns/meltaguns can't move and shoot normally because they are heavy and heavies need to be stationary to fire with normal BS any heavy choice on the codexes would actually not be allowed to move and shoot with normal BS unless they are tanks.

**BetrayTheWorld**

Pyrian wrote:
>90% say 4+. I don't think we could get that kind of consensus that 2+2=4.

The status quo is a strong thing. I may be incorrect here, but the numbers indicated in the poll would lead me to believe that people are either completely ignoring the relevant rules posted in the OP in favor of the status quo, or have simply decided not to investigate said rules for the same reason. There is a clear conflict of rules posted in the rules citations of post #1.

No one likes to hear, "Hey, I think 99% of games have been playing this wrong." Hearing that would fundamentally alter the way such models effect gameplay, and many people have spent countless hours working out their strategies within the constraints of the current rulesets. Furthermore, many people likely don't even bother researching, and simply vote for the way it's been played most widely.

I've no doubt that it is played primarily as 4+. But the rules citations show that there is definitely a strong argument for playing it as 3+ as well. I can't say who is correct, but if GW intended the ADL to be 4+, I wonder what that 3+ section in the cover rules is for.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Yayula wrote:

It is just the name of the FoC section where you can purchase the ADL, that doesn't mean anything you pick will be classified as a fortification.

Actually, it does. There are 6 categories of things you can purchase for your army: HQs, Troops, Elites, Fast Attacks, Heavy Supports, and Fortifications.

Anything you pick in that slot counts as that during the game. That's why various abilities that allow you to purchase non-troops as troops make those units scoring. Because they are considered the "troop" type thereafter. Heavy Support, and the "Heavy" unit type are not synonymous. They are two different things with two different names and classifications. Just like a Rockstar Groupie is not a Rockstar.

**rigeld2**

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I can't say who is correct, but if GW intended the ADL to be 4+, I wonder what that 3+ section in the cover rules is for.

As you were told in the other thread, if you're obstructed by 25% from a bastion, it's 3+ cover.

You're creating a conflict in the rules where there isn't one.

**BetrayTheWorld**

rigeld2 wrote:
BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I can't say who is correct, but if GW intended the ADL to be 4+, I wonder what that 3+ section in the cover rules is for.

As you were told in the other thread, if you're obstructed by 25% from a bastion, it's 3+ cover.

You're creating a conflict in the rules where there isn't one.

I don't believe so. I certainly didn't write the rules or they'd be perfectly clear, so I don't think laying the responsibility of the rules conflict squarely on my shoulders is quite fair.

**rigeld2**

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I can't say who is correct, but if GW intended the ADL to be 4+, I wonder what that 3+ section in the cover rules is for.

As you were told in the other thread, if you're obstructed by 25% from a bastion, it's 3+ cover.

You're creating a conflict in the rules where there isn't one.

I don't believe so. I certainly didn't write the rules or they'd be perfectly clear, so I don't think laying the responsibility of the rules conflict squarely on my shoulders is quite fair.

The problem is that the rules (in this case) are clear and you've invented a situation you think makes them unclear. It doesn't, you just choose to read them that way.

**easysauce**

90+% is obviously not high enough to convince people that they might actually be wrong?

seriously if you are still argueing the 3+ save, on a "fortification" that specifically says in its own special rules it grants a 4+, after being told multiple times my the vast majority of people its not so, when a 4+ aegis is already the cats @$$, and a 3+ is broken and very much not the rules.

despite swarms being "fast attack" they still dont score in missions where "fast atack" scores, because that SPECIFIC fast attack choice has a special rule, associated with its type, that modifys the GENERAL rule enabling fast attack to score.

just like the specific fortification rules for aegis, state it is a defence line that grans 4+ cover, overiding the general rule for fortifications to grant 3+

**BetrayTheWorld**

easysauce wrote:
90+% is obviously not high enough to convince people that they might actually be wrong?

Oh, excuse me. I didn't know we were practicing correctness by majority here. The next time I meet 30 guys who tell me 2+2=8, I'll keep that in mind.

easysauce wrote:
seriously if you are still argueing the 3+ save, on a "fortification" that specifically says in its own special rules it grants a 4+

It doesn't say that in it's "special rules". It doesn't have any said special rules. It has a terrain type, that is all. It also is defined as a fortification. As a matter of fact, the word fortification is about 20 times the size of the terrain type on the same page, so by your above "majority wins" logic, shouldn't the bigger words be more important?

easysauce wrote:
just like the specific fortification rules for aegis, state it is a defence line that grans 4+ cover, overiding the general rule for fortifications to grant 3+

Both the FoC rules that define the ADL as a fortification, and the terrain type rules are in sections of the book defined as "Advanced" rules. There is no such thing as "General vs. Specific". It's "Basic vs. Advanced", and both rules are in the advanced sections of the BRB.

**DarknessEternal**

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Pyrian wrote:
>90% say 4+. I don't think we could get that kind of consensus that 2+2=4.

The status quo is a strong thing. I may be incorrect here, but the numbers indicated in the poll would lead me to believe that people are either completely ignoring the relevant rules posted in the OP in favor of the status quo, or have simply decided not to investigate said rules for the same reason.

Did you seriously just post "I don't like the results, so I'm claiming it's all lies."?

**BetrayTheWorld**

DarknessEternal wrote:
BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Pyrian wrote:
>90% say 4+. I don't think we could get that kind of consensus that 2+2=4.

The status quo is a strong thing. I may be incorrect here, but the numbers indicated in the poll would lead me to believe that people are either completely ignoring the relevant rules posted in the OP in favor of the status quo, or have simply decided not to investigate said rules for the same reason.

Did you seriously just post "I don't like the results, so I'm claiming it's all lies."?

No, it has nothing to do with lies or truths. That poll is HYWPI.

As for the Status Quo statement, I'm just pointing out that in any instance where 90%+ of a group of people even MIGHT be wrong(not saying they are, just maybe), it is difficult to make them consider changing their position. See WW2, or the American Civil War, or any other situation where clear violations of human rights were morally wrong, yet the status quo was strong enough to convince entire populations of the worthiness of their cause. So much so that thousands were willing to fight and die for the belief that their position was correct.

If, considering this, you don't feel that the status quo is a strong influence on majority opinion, then there is really very little for you and I to talk about. I doubt either of us would find the conversation enriching.