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.

Could we please refrain from attacks on one another, or further discussions of the rules?

I feel I've been very reasonable in my creation of this thread. A poll never killed anyone, and it never hurts to have numbers to back up your argument (no matter which side you come down on!). While I appreciate that people feels strongly about this, or maligned in some fashion, the sole purpose of this thread is to gather numerical data, not to convince anyone of your feelings, beliefs, or of the rightness of your interpretations.

Rehashing the same arguments we have already had is a waste of time. Arguing over who is the worst arguer is likewise a waste of time. An argument is completely, absolutely pointless if you do not respect the other person's position enough to be willing to allow them to change your mind.

I created this thread in order to get some numbers to see how big the sides were on this issue. That is the sole purpose of this thread. I am asking you as a personal kindness to vote if you have not already. Following that, if you do not have anything that is pleasant (or completely new and fresh) to add to this discussion, please just close the window. I am not attacking anyone, nor am I slandering anyone's opinion, belief, character, or interpretation. Please be kind enough to moderate your behavior in such a fashion that my thread will not be locked. I haven't done anything to any of you, to my knowledge. Please, let's all just be civil.

Thank you, and good day.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Could we please refrain from attacks on one another, or further discussions of the rules?

I feel I've been very reasonable in my creation of this thread. A poll never killed anyone, and it never hurts to have numbers to back up your argument (no matter which side you come down on!). While I appreciate that people feels strongly about this, or maligned in some fashion, the sole purpose of this thread is to gather numerical data, not to convince anyone of your feelings, beliefs, or of the rightness of your interpretations.

I created this thread in order to get some numbers to see how big the sides were on this issue. That is the sole purpose of this thread. I am asking you as a personal kindness to vote if you have not already.

Thank you, and good day.

I sent a message to Yakface just after the last thread got locked, and I asked him to create a poll on how people Play the ADL

I aksed him to create the poll instead of doing it myself, as his rules HWIPI polls are very in depth and are not biased towards one side or the other. His poll format is excellent.

Here was my question to him and his response.

yakface wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Hey Yak, I was wondering, since the recent thread got locked, how people on Dakka play the cover saves for the ADL.

Do most people play it as a 3+ or a 4+?

Can you make a poll, similar to the other YMDC polls so we can get a sense of who plays it as what?

Basically a thread like this: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/519543.page But for ADL and cover saves. Basically a poll to see what people in this thread play it as: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/520287.page

Thank you

-DR.

IMHO, I think its kind of a senseless poll. I can tell you without hesitation that 95%+ play that the ADL is a 4+ save. But if you want to do it, then yeah, write it up and I'll post it.

A friendly reminder from the Moderation team: any time you find your self reaching for comparisons to human rights violations or other atrocities when discussing your toy soldier hobby, you are likely over-invested in the conversation, and need to step back.

Before bad things happen to your posting privileges.

Cmdr Hindsight wrote:
Though I have never played against some one claiming that the ADL grants 3+ cover save, I have had a player try and explain to me that regardless of how little a model is obscured (or not obscured at all) they still benefit from the cover save. This was after a flyer was shooting at an infantry unit elevated behind the ADL. Said flyer could clearly draw LOS to the entire model. I am not sure if this is applicable to the thread but models still have to be 25 percent obscured to receive that cover save correct?

This is one of my favorite tricks to snipe devastators behind an ADL. Typically your opponent will put boltguns against the ADL and heavies in the back rank. I will use the max cover save of a X+ rule to force him to force him to pick off his heavy weapons since cover saves are done on a per model basis. I almost always get an argument if its the first time it has happened to them. I have the pages memorized it comes up so much. Determing Cover Saves and Focus Fire on page 18. The interesting thing is for focus fire to work it doesn't even require you use your cover save you just calculate it. You can still use your armor save through.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
When I play and ADL this is typically how I deploy it because of my shenanigans with focus fire.

________
|
|____
|
|____

yakface wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Hey Yak, I was wondering, since the recent thread got locked, how people on Dakka play the cover saves for the ADL.

Do most people play it as a 3+ or a 4+?

Can you make a poll, similar to the other YMDC polls so we can get a sense of who plays it as what?

IMHO, I think its kind of a senseless poll. I can tell you without hesitation that 95%+ play that the ADL is a 4+ save. But if you want to do it, then yeah, write it up and I'll post it.

LOL ! Actually, Yakface it's only 91%.

I would like to quote the following from a previous thread titled General vs Specific.

" Actually the book does define which rules are basic rules, per page 7, the rules found between 10 and 31 are basic rules every other rule in the book is an advanced rule. They then go on to say an advanced rule will override a basic rule. There is no rule for advanced vs advanced. " - Gravmyr

The rules referring to fortifications being a 3+ are part of the basic rules which are specifically overwritten by later advanced rules in the book.

ADL should be played as a 4+ cover save.

Thank you From, for providing new information. I had not seen the quote you provided from Gravmyr before.

 Grugknuckle wrote:
LOL ! Actually, Yakface it's only 91%.

The current poll is asking what people think it should be, not how they play it.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
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.

Agreed, but I would also add the cover chart is meant as a series of examples and not a comprehensive list. The use of 'fortification' on it is misleading as I do not believe they meant anything that falls under the fortification slot of a FAC. In my opinion a defense line is more like a ruined fortification and all the stuff you pointed out tends to support my opinion.

Hey guys, this should solve it...

If the aegis was giving you a 3+ cover save, then you could go to ground and have a 1+ cover save...which you cant do.

That ends it.

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey guys, this should solve it...

If the aegis was giving you a 3+ cover save, then you could go to ground and have a 1+ cover save...which you cant do.

That ends it.

if you don't want to consider the ADL a defense line/wall Then you would only get a +1 to your cover save from going to ground.

If you want the +2 then you have to accept that it is a wall, defense line ie 4+ cover to start +2 to go to ground.

and anything that modifies to a 1+ save is negated by the maximum save rule on pg 19.

sirlynchmob wrote:

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey guys, this should solve it...

If the aegis was giving you a 3+ cover save, then you could go to ground and have a 1+ cover save...which you cant do.

That ends it.

if you don't want to consider the ADL a defense line/wall Then you would only get a +1 to your cover save from going to ground.

If you want the +2 then you have to accept that it is a wall, defense line ie 4+ cover to start +2 to go to ground.

and anything that modifies to a 1+ save is negated by the maximum save rule on pg 19.

Actually.. if I consider it a purpose built fortification which grants a 3+ cover save and not a defense line/wall.. i could still go to ground behind it and get a 2+ cover save..

 Miri wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey guys, this should solve it...

If the aegis was giving you a 3+ cover save, then you could go to ground and have a 1+ cover save...which you cant do.

That ends it.

if you don't want to consider the ADL a defense line/wall Then you would only get a +1 to your cover save from going to ground.

If you want the +2 then you have to accept that it is a wall, defense line ie 4+ cover to start +2 to go to ground.

and anything that modifies to a 1+ save is negated by the maximum save rule on pg 19.

Actually.. if I consider it a purpose built fortification which grants a 3+ cover save and not a defense line/wall.. i could still go to ground behind it and get a 2+ cover save..

nope, you only get the 2+ cover for going to ground behind a battlefield debris defense line, which follows all the rules for barracades and walls (4+ cover) If you want to claim the ADL is a purpose built fortification than you don't get the 2+ GTG bonus.

sirlynchmob wrote:
nope, you only get the 2+ cover for going to ground behind a battlefield debris defense line, which follows all the rules for barracades and walls (4+ cover) If you want to claim the ADL is a purpose built fortification than you don't get the 2+ GTG bonus.

But you still get a +1 bonus from normal GTG, which, added to the supposed 3+ starting cover save, gets you a 2+ save. Since a 2+ cover save is the highest you can get it doesn't matter if you don't have the +2 bonus.

Not that it matters because the rules explicitly state that the ADL gives a 4+ cover save.

Actually Jim that rules quote was given in the other thred, and it was still roundly ignored by the 3+ proponents, like esentially every other rules quote that demolished the argument

Betray - it isnt "im right, youre wrong" it is "we're right because we provided X, Y, Z proof, and you were unable to counter said proof"

Cmdr Hindsight wrote:
Though I have never played against some one claiming that the ADL grants 3+ cover save, I have had a player try and explain to me that regardless of how little a model is obscured (or not obscured at all) they still benefit from the cover save. This was after a flyer was shooting at an infantry unit elevated behind the ADL. Said flyer could clearly draw LOS to the entire model. I am not sure if this is applicable to the thread but models still have to be 25 percent obscured to receive that cover save correct?

yes. It is in no way but the deployment different from any other battlefield debris.
(oh, and the +2 to cover save when dropping to the ground behind it. So 2 exceptions.)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
we're right because we provided X, Y, Z proof, and you were unable to counter said proof"

Oh, really? I posted the rules several times, and you never disproved them. It wasn't necessary for me to post them more, just to enter into a "Yes huh, nuh uh" argument.

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.

These rules clearly state that the Aegis Defense Line is a Fortification, and purpose-built. It is defined thusly in advanced rules. Purpose built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save. It is also terrain type: defense lines, which confer a 4+ cover save. Both of these are permissions. No where in the rules does it say that a piece of terrain can only provide a single cover save. When there are 2 rules, and it is possible to apply both of them, you're supposed to apply both. So in the most literal interpretation of the rules, the ADL would provide both a 4+ and 3+ cover save. And the rules for saves tell us to use the best one available.

No, actually. It states it is a "Fortification", not a "fortification"

You are confusing that the FOC slot "Fortification" is a proper noun, and therefore not the same as a "fortification" which is referred to elsewhere.

Of course, you were told, and shown all of this and more previously, and took no notice then - so this is more for those who think you might actually have a rules based argument, when you dont.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
LOL ! Actually, Yakface it's only 91%.

The current poll is asking what people think it should be, not how they play it.

And of course I was just trying to introduce a little levity to diffuse the tension.

This not a scientific poll, and obviously Yak was just estimating anyway.

ADL: Fortification (Battlefield Debris: Defense line)
Fortification: 3+
Defense Line: 4+

Guess what wins.

The (Battlefield Debris: Defense line) Wins, as that is the more specific rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, actually. It states it is a "Fortification", not a "fortification"

It was capitalized because it was at the beginning of the sentence, not because it's some magically different word. There is no difference between Fortification and fortification.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The (Battlefield Debris: Defense line) Wins, as that is the more specific rule.

There is no "General vs. Specific" rule. Both rules apply in cases where they may do so. This is such a case. If anyone has evidence showing that both rules can't be in effect simultaneously, present it.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The (Battlefield Debris: Defense line) Wins, as that is the more specific rule.

There is no "General vs. Specific" rule. Both rules apply in cases where they may do so. This is such a case. If anyone has evidence showing that both rules can't be in effect simultaneously, present it.

There's no rule in Rulebook, but it's a fundamental part of the English Language. You can ignore it as much as you can ignore grammar (although it seems Grammer is mostly ignored these days it seems).

If I say "Everyone can have a beer, except those underage" there's an example of General Vs. Specific.
If we ignore this fundamental part of the Language, as you suggest, you'd be giving beer to children.

(Speaking of which, I'm off for a beer. Later)

I stick Plague Bearers in mine.with a herald with FnP loci manning the QG, so it does not really matter whether it is 4 or 3+, I still get the 2+ cover.

C'mon guys, we all know the rules arguments we've already been over. There's no call to be snarky to each other, either. Please, if you don't feel like you can get anywhere, then just walk away.

 Jimsolo wrote:
C'mon guys, we all know the rules arguments we've already been over. There's no call to be snarky to each other, either. Please, if you don't feel like you can get anywhere, then just walk away.

With 4k+ posts, you should know better

I don't even know what the discussion is about. 4+ as it specifically says in the silly rules.

Betray - nope, it is the Capitalised "Fortification" proper noun.

But it doesnt matter - the rules prove it is a 4+, and only ignoring the clear rules can make you think otherwise.

Okay, that's enough from both of you. Out of the thread, nosferatu1001 & BetrayTheWorld. You're off-topic.

Lets be honest, its a blatant 4+, anyone attempting to claim a 3+ from the aegis is just being so pedantic theyre probably not worth playing

Come on, now. Personal attacks on people for their opinion on this issue are neither warranted nor needed. Just as there is no call to discuss the rules issues from the original thread, there is no call to be rude to one another, or to the other side of the argument in general.