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.

Battlements have a defined cover save, so we are required by the rule to use that Cover Save as opposed to the one provided on page 18. I can not remember if it was directly mentioned in the Rule Book, but it has come up a few times within Frequently Asked Questions. As Battlement do have a stated cover save, it is that stated save which is granted and not a 3+ that a 'generic' fortification would be granted. I will need to review the pre-Frequently Asked Question, as I do believe battlements have a sentence informing us that they are walls*, but even if I am remembering things like a senile old men the post-Frequently Asked Question situation is till very valid:

Battlements are not 3+ because their rules state they are not, fortification or otherwise.

* Something to look into with the SkyShield Landing Pad, does it describe those adjustable pieces as 'walls.'

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
20 days later to agree with him?

That's within the time limits of this forum.

Also, it's a citation of why the Skyshield provides a 3+ cover save.

Ok so you didn't agree with him.

The Skyshield is a Fortification(the FOC Slot), but is not a fortification(the purpose built 3+ cover type).

A gun Emplacement, behind a Bunker or pillbox(within certain types of pillbox); those are fortifications.

The Aegis defense line, Skyshield Landing Pad, Wall of Martyrs sets; those are Fortifications(but not fortifications unless they specifically say they are)

Kommissar Kel,
I will need to get back to the rule book, but I have been so distracted I have too much to rule Lawyer and my mind has gone on Hiatus as a result:
Is there a Fortification tag to be found in the datasheets, informing us of when the building in question is a 'fortification?'

JinxDragon wrote:
Battlements have a defined cover save, so we are required by the rule to use that Cover Save as opposed to the one provided on page 18. I can not remember if it was directly mentioned in the Rule Book, but it has come up a few times within Frequently Asked Questions. As Battlement do have a stated cover save, it is that stated save which is granted and not a 3+ that a 'generic' fortification would be granted. I will need to review the pre-Frequently Asked Question, as I do believe battlements have a sentence informing us that they are walls*, but even if I am remembering things like a senile old men the post-Frequently Asked Question situation is till very valid:

Battlements are not 3+ because their rules state they are not, fortification or otherwise.

* Something to look into with the SkyShield Landing Pad, does it describe those adjustable pieces as 'walls.'

I don't believe i've found it anywhere, a page number would be welcome =) It states that they have a cover save but never says what the value is?

It's the only 3+ in the rulebook, what else is a fortification if not the Fortification Battlement?

I do not have the BRB on me but researched this at length previously as my local GW manager proved it to me (this does not make it right, just saying there's an argument for it)

BlackTalos,
I may, no promises, look into the matter when I get back to the Library and try to find the exact wording within the Basic Rule Book. As I mentioned in the post though, the findings of such research would be irrelevant to the discussion. This is because the matter has been addressed in Frequently Asked Question format, and the answer informed us to be using a 4+ cover save when it comes to battlements. This information is freely found online by going to the Game Workshop website and accessing their Frequently Asked Questions, within a poorly worded answer on page 8. As this answer is identical to the recent changes that battlements have gone through in the Stronghold Assault rules, it is obvious that we are over-looking something in the Basic Rule Book .

Either that or they changed their minds after publication, either way the answer is still the same:
The current rules for battlements, both Basic Rule Book and Stronghold Assault, only grant a 4+ cover save.

Basic Rule Book Frequently Asked Questions:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

JinxDragon wrote:
Kommissar Kel,
I will need to get back to the rule book, but I have been so distracted I have too much to rule Lawyer and my mind has gone on Hiatus as a result:
Is there a Fortification tag to be found in the datasheets, informing us of when the building in question is a 'fortification?'

No, a "fortification" is a terrain type determined by you and your opponent.

A "Fortification" if the purchase-able terrain that is part of your army.

All the Buildings are generally both by the BRB(maybe RAW, inferred; The Dilapidated Fortifications rule effects only Buildings and has a terrain Cover stat), The Walls are Walls and Barricades, so not "fortifications", and the Quad gun/Icarus Lascannons are Gun Emplacements(Just realized I, like GW am using the same term for 2 separate entities, the "Gun Emplacements" from my last post was referring to dugouts and reinforced, well fortifications for troopers with big guns, artillery emplacements, or vehicle defenses, not a gun that can be fired by models in range), and so again not "fortifications"

We have no Idea what to classify the Skyshield, but it is certainly not a prepared defensive position(Helipads/airstrips are by their nature not a fortified position); it is likely just split-level Area Terrain(since that is how the Top functions with respect to both being a section of Clear terrain, and the Invul Save it provides)

Black Talos: Per Stronghold Assault Battlements are the top level of a Ruin; so 4+ Area terrain.

And Per the BRB FAQ(if you are not using Stronghold assault):

BRB FAQ wrote:Q. W hat is the armour value of
battlements
? (p95)
A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save.

Kel,
Defiantly something for me to look at when I get my brain back from the cleaners, it sort of likes the broken duel-terminology that Game Workshop uses....

That is exactly what it is.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Kommissar Kel,
I will need to get back to the rule book, but I have been so distracted I have too much to rule Lawyer and my mind has gone on Hiatus as a result:
Is there a Fortification tag to be found in the datasheets, informing us of when the building in question is a 'fortification?'

No, a "fortification" is a terrain type determined by you and your opponent.

A "Fortification" if the purchase-able terrain that is part of your army.

So what is your contention on the cover save provided by terrain of type "Unusual" which the Skyshield Landing Pad is.

It's not clear terrain and it can obscure LoS, so it must provide a cover save of some value.

It explains what is meant by "unique". The top is open terrain, and it is difficult terrain to move up or down. Furthermore, the rules straight up say, discuss with your opponent and determine cover saves.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Kommissar Kel,
I will need to get back to the rule book, but I have been so distracted I have too much to rule Lawyer and my mind has gone on Hiatus as a result:
Is there a Fortification tag to be found in the datasheets, informing us of when the building in question is a 'fortification?'

No, a "fortification" is a terrain type determined by you and your opponent.

A "Fortification" if the purchase-able terrain that is part of your army.

So what is your contention on the cover save provided by terrain of type "Unusual" which the Skyshield Landing Pad is.

It's not clear terrain and it can obscure LoS, so it must provide a cover save of some value.

I'll just quote another portion of what you quoted here:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
We have no Idea what to classify the Skyshield, but it is certainly not a prepared defensive position(Helipads/airstrips are by their nature not a fortified position); it is likely just split-level Area Terrain(since that is how the Top functions with respect to both being a section of Clear terrain, and the Invul Save it provides)

Area terrain is a 5+

Cite where Skyshield Landing Pad is listed as Area Terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
It explains what is meant by "unique". The top is open terrain, and it is difficult terrain to move up or down. Furthermore, the rules straight up say, discuss with your opponent and determine cover saves.

I say no cover save, my opponent says 1+ cover save. Neither of us have rules to back up either statement. In fact, there are no rules to back up any cover save on it except "fortifications 3+". That is the only rule in the entire game system to decipher the cover save.

At this point I would even be happy with another broken Frequently Asked Question answer along the lines of:
The Sky-shield only grants a X invulnerability save to obstructed models.
Would it be the first time that obstruction granted an invulnerability save other then a cover save?

It raises a few other questions as well but at least it would be easy to follow and no one could really argue because it singles out obstructed models as having no cover save in this instance. After-all, if their intention was simply for nothing more then a invulnerability save then a simple statement of this fact would be appreciated. It would be nice to know just what they intended for that lone entry into a single chart designed to show examples of cover saves, as it isn't a compete list, but that is a side point to the Skyshield's 'Unique' problem.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Cite where Skyshield Landing Pad is listed as Area Terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
It explains what is meant by "unique". The top is open terrain, and it is difficult terrain to move up or down. Furthermore, the rules straight up say, discuss with your opponent and determine cover saves.

I say no cover save, my opponent says 1+ cover save. Neither of us have rules to back up either statement. In fact, there are no rules to back up any cover save on it except "fortifications 3+". That is the only rule in the entire game system to decipher the cover save.

From the Stronghold assault supplement(exact same wording as the BRB): "Unusual. The top surface of the Skyshield Landing Pad is open ground. To move onto or off of the landing pad counts as moving through difficult terrain. "

It is a terrain Feature with a Clearly defined boundry that then has a specific rule that it is not Difficult ground(which the BRB generalizes Area terrain as always difficult).

The top is Open Ground, the Pad is a Terrain Feature, that makes the area of the terrain Open Ground; that makes the pad area terrain.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

And Per the BRB FAQ(if you are not using Stronghold assault):

BRB FAQ wrote:Q. W hat is the armour value of
battlements
? (p95)
A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save.

Thanks for that, I had not seen this one before...
I am also inclined to say this is what the SLP would have? Due to how they answered this.

sangheili wrote:
I would no. Unless you can give the mark to the sky shield

Why would you need to give the skyshield a mark, its the model who takes the save and has the mark.

BlackTalos,
I lean the same way, I took a quick flick through the rules but because of the 'brain not found' errors I did not retain the information... still I am vaguely sure they refer to the adjustable part as 'walls.'

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

It is a terrain Feature with a Clearly defined boundry that then has a specific rule that it is not Difficult ground(which the BRB generalizes Area terrain as always difficult).

The top is Open Ground, the Pad is a Terrain Feature, that makes the area of the terrain Open Ground; that makes the pad area terrain.

That's actually pretty convincing.

Still doesn't tell us what the cover save for something partially obscured by the foot, but not in the terrain feature, would have.

Back to page 2/3 I have a question that commonly gets overlooked "If a model with Strength 4 has both '+1 Strength' and 'Strength 8' it's final Strength is 8".
This is the only section of the entire rule book that deals with how modifiers work.

So why is "Has a 4+ invul from shooting attacks" and has "+1 to invuls" different from "+1 strength" and "Strength 8"????

Or i'll rephrase "Furious charge" with seige drills (attacks at strength 9... yeah i know no one uses them) would be strength 9.

I've asked this same question about the screamer counsel and people seem convinced that it's timing, though the modifers section clearly says regardless of timing.

Because the invul isn't a set modifier. It adds a new invul.

Siege drill has a set strength and is not a strength modifier.

IE a Powerfist doubles the model str. So if it gets +1 Str and is normally S4 since the rulebooke says to double then add it would make it S9.

The siege drill does not double str. It simply has it's own.

The mark of Tzentch gives a model +1 to it's inv save. If it's standing on a skyshield with the walls up it has a 4+ inv save.

So mark of tzentch makes it a 3+ inv save. Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. These are GW rules sense left a long time ago.

Just RAW and run with it.

sangheili wrote:
I would no. Unless you can give the mark to the sky shield

Do you have any reasoning for this?

I'm quite interested.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Siege drill has a set strength and is not a strength modifier.

IE a Powerfist doubles the model str. So if it gets +1 Str and is normally S4 since the rulebooke says to double then add it would make it S9.

The siege drill does not double str. It simply has it's own.

The mark of Tzentch gives a model +1 to it's inv save. If it's standing on a skyshield with the walls up it has a 4+ inv save.

So mark of tzentch makes it a 3+ inv save. Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. These are GW rules sense left a long time ago.

Just RAW and run with it.

Unless the 4+ save is a "set value" in which case it gets applied after the +1. In which case it's still a 4+. (BRB,Pg. 2). I don't know.

Angelic,
Precedent disproves that idea.

If the Skyshield is a set modifier then every time you see the words 'have an X invulnerability save' it would also be a set modifier. One such case of this terminology is the Daemon Special Rule, this would mean all Daemon characters have to apply their invulnerability score last in any modification equations. Given that there is war-gear which states you can only ever use it on daemons, and then it goes on to state it is a +/- modifier, it would now become impossible for this piece of war-gear to function.

That is just one case which can not function if 'have an X invulnerability save' is a set modifier, I am sure others can be found.

Pg 2 BRB applies to Characteristics.

It also lists the characteristics. Inv saves are not characteristics as not all models have them.

The Sv under a model stats stands for Armour Save. Not just saves.

Only wargear or special abilities grant inv saves. Mark of Tzentch is a wargear that modifies the save. If the save changes it doesn't ignore the modifier.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Pg 2 BRB applies to Characteristics.

It also lists the characteristics. Inv saves are not characteristics as not all models have them.

The Sv under a model stats stands for Armour Save. Not just saves.

Only wargear or special abilities grant inv saves. Mark of Tzentch is a wargear that modifies the save. If the save changes it doesn't ignore the modifier.

Please, cite rules for modifying invul saves without referencing characteristics.
Page 19 shows invul saves are characteristics as well (as it cites a single difference between armor and invul saves).

Nowhere does pg 17 say it's a characteristic.

Also you say it cites a single difference however it says

Invulnerable Save are different to armour saves...

Then it states why they are different.

It's not listed anywhere under the rulebook definitions of Characteristics. Pg 2.

Cite rules that list inv saves as a characteristic.

Cover saves are not characteristics, neither are inv saves. Nor are deny the witch rolls.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Also you say it cites a single difference however it says

Invulnerable Save are different to armour saves...

Then it states why they are different.

Sorry about the page number - I misremembered.
Correct - that's the single way they're different. And?

It's not listed anywhere under the rulebook definitions of Characteristics. Pg 2.

Never claimed otherwise...

Cite rules that list inv saves as a characteristic.

You've already done that. Page 17.

Cover saves are not characteristics, neither are inv saves. Nor are deny the witch rolls.

DtW? That came out of left field.
They must be. Could you please answer my question? Where are the rules for modifying invul and cover saves?

I have to side with rigeld2 on this one,
The Rule doesn't need to be listed as a characteristic if it contains instructions telling us to treat it as one. In this case we are told that Invulnerability Saves are identical except for one difference, so aside from that one difference we are to treat them identically. As that difference is not it's status as a characteristic, just giving you permission to evoke these rules in more situations then a standard Armour Save. As the Armour Save is a Characteristic, and the Invulnerability Save is identical to an Armour Save with one non-status related exception, then Invulnerability Save is a characteristic because the body of it's rule tell us to treat it identical to a characteristic.

If you are not allowing it to be modified as a characteristic, have you obeyed the rule telling us it is identical to a known characteristic?

Added:
I am reviewing the rule in a little more depth now and curious if it does tell us to treat it identically. It does state that they are different because of X, but that sort of wording doesn't mean X is an exhausted list. By pointing out that they are different it does allow the argument that part of that differences is the lack of permission to be a characteristic. It still fails precedent, there are rules informing us to improve a Invulnerability Saves by +1 and they break with this interpretation, but it is a good question when you look at the wording used.

Just in case I am overlooking something, where does it state to treat them identically?

JinxDragon wrote:
I have to side with rigeld2 on this one,
The Rule doesn't need to be listed as a characteristic if it contains instructions telling us to treat it as one. In this case we are told that Invulnerability Saves are identical except for one difference, so aside from that one difference we are to treat them identically. As that difference is not it's status as a characteristic, just giving you permission to evoke these rules in more situations then a standard Armour Save. As the Armour Save is a Characteristic, and the Invulnerability Save is identical to an Armour Save with one non-status related exception, then Invulnerability Save is a characteristic because the body of it's rule tell us to treat it identical to a characteristic.

If you are not allowing it to be modified as a characteristic, have you obeyed the rule telling us it is identical to a known characteristic?

Added:
I am reviewing the rule in a little more depth now and curious if it does tell us to treat it identically. It does state that they are different because of X, but that sort of wording doesn't mean X is an exhausted list. By pointing out that they are different it does allow the argument that part of that differences is the lack of permission to be a characteristic. It still fails precedent, there are rules informing us to improve a Invulnerability Saves by +1 and they break with this interpretation, but it is a good question when you look at the wording used.

Just in case I am overlooking something, where does it state to treat them identically?

It says they are different in a single way and that list, by the wording is exhaustive.