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.

What value of cover save do models on top of a "Shielded" landing pad get. Assuming they are next to the flaps that look like most Aegis defense line walls and/or most other tabletop walls.
The rules in Stronghold assault say "Units on top of a shielded Skyshield landing pad have a 4+ invulnerable save against shooting attacks."
Those rules do not say that this is a cover save. I ask about the cover save as there are a few armies that can boost existing cover saves.
My interpretation is that the model would get one of three choices:
Its normal save,
a cover save (subject to being buffed via psychic powers or ignored by some weapons),
or the 4+ shield save vs shooting

Feedback?

I don't think the Aegis specifies any alternative save (unless the shields are up and its a 4++) and it isn't ruins. If that is the case, your models are just obscured and you get a 5+ save.

I acctually think the flaps cout as fortification save so 4+ cover.

Eihnlazer wrote:
I acctually [sic] think the flaps cout [sic] as fortification save so 4+ cover.

Fortifications give a 3+ cover save, not a 4+...

I always found this question to be interesting for, as DeathReaper points, out the cover save is actually 3+.

The why is what makes it so very interesting, as the only reason we know this piece of information is from a single source. During the introduction to cover save section of the book it provides us with a chart designed to show us what some example cover saves look like. On this chart is an entry called fortifications and next to it is the 3+ value, the single source I mentioned earlier. Unlike all the other entries on the chart, this is not supported later on in the Rule sections detailing those terrain pieces. This side point doesn't change anything, because the table is still 'Rule as Written,' but it is something I find so very interesting. Maybe more so when you consider battlements, clearly part of the fortification, and how they only have a 4+ save.

I do accept that I could of over-looked or forgotten something, so could someone point me to where it explains the cover saves provided by fortifications without referencing this table....

The cover save chart is really only a guide.

"Before deploying their armies, it is a very good idea for players to go through all the terrain pieces on the battlefield quickly and agree what kind of cover each will offer."

Is the way to sort it out.

JinxDragon wrote:
I do accept that I could of over-looked or forgotten something, so could someone point me to where it explains the cover saves provided by fortifications without referencing this table....

That is like asking where it explains what you need to roll to wound without referencing the To Wound chart...

DeathReaper,
I disagree as you are taking the question out of context. Had I put forth the question of 'where can I find the cover save for Ruins without applying this chart' people can quote page 98. Similar could be supplied for other things on that chart as well, and in fact we will need to review the terrain rules in depth as part of cover saves because that is far from a comprehensive list. There is a very great difference between a chart provided to us as an example of a concept being explained at that point in time, again right after telling us where to find the more comprehensive rules, and a chart designed to be a calculation matrix that other rules rely on.

The point of my post, which I am sure you understood, was to highlight the lack of clarification on this one particular value. Had the other entries on this chart been blank as well, then I wouldn't of even thought twice on it, but they have been supported elsewhere. Yet the fortification section is void on explaining the cover saves generated by fortifications, which seems the perfect place to support not just one entry on that chart but two. Given the format used throughout the Terrain section of the book, where cover is mentioned more then the cover save section, I would expect some mention on how to calculate the fortifications/"Ruined Fortifications" cover save. A cover save that I find to be very unique, I'm hard pressed to remember anything granting lower then 4+ cover without modifiers, should warrant more then a number on a chart designed as an example of a concept.

Not to mention battlements pre-Stronghold Assault:
Part of a Fortification and the cover save is not a 3+

So now do you see why I find the correct answer of 3+ to be a curious thing?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
I acctually [sic] think the flaps cout [sic] as fortification save so 4+ cover.

Fortifications give a 3+ cover save, not a 4+...

I cannot check the FAQ because I'm at work (good old sonicwall), but I'm fairly certain they FAQ'd the "Fortification give a 3+ cover save" out of the rules.

I really don't see how you find the correct answer of 3+ to be a curious thing. It says it in black and white. The rule is literally in the BRB.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I really don't see how you find the correct answer of 3+ to be a curious thing. It says it in black and white. The rule is literally in the BRB.

Rule is literally FAQ'd and technically not in the rulebook.

DeathReaper,
That is perfectly all right, we are all different people and what we find curious is something unique to ourselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DW,
Can you please post the Answer in question or at least tell me what page it is found on?

DW,
The only FAQ about this is the one mentioned above already:

Q. What 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.

And the 3+ save from fortifications still exists on p18, including with FaQs.

As to Jinx: i think we pretty much agreed in a different post that the only application of the 3+ is for a unit "behind" a bastion (so obscured by a fortification withouth being in the Fortification)

As to the OP question, another part of the FAQ is relevant:

Q. If so, do battlements count as a separate building, or is the
bastion a multi-part building? (p95)
A: Battlements are treated as being separate from the
building itself, simply acting as cover for any models on top
of the building in question – see the rules for battlements
on page 95

Does the skyshield have "cover" on top of it, do the flaps "create" battlement?
Usual battlements is a 4+, does the Skyshield not give a 4+? (but better because it's 4++?)

And as for any "LoS 25%" argument: what save do you get when 25% behind a hill, cliff (or any other "open terrain" feature)? Because Terrain Type for the Skyshield is clear

Hills have a defined cover save - 4+

You are obscured by somethign that is NOT battlements - as a skyshield does not say they are - so you would get a 3+ cover save

Skyshield isn't classified as a fortification doesn't does give 3+ cover

So what part of the chart does it fit into?

Is there a requirement for all terrain to fit into the chart?

"The Chart" is described quite clearly as being some suggested values for some general terrain types.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Hills have a defined cover save - 4+

You are obscured by somethign that is NOT battlements - as a skyshield does not say they are - so you would get a 3+ cover save

I fully agree with this: if you are obscured behind the pad by one of the legs, yes.

However the OP is asking about the configuration on top giving Cover in addition to the 4++. However the rules state it is "open terrain", so unless you are within 3" of something on top (and therefore obscured by the pad itself) you only get the 4++ the "shielded" give you.

To simplify: The "wall" that moves up or down is ignored for the purpose of LoS cover saves. In the same way a Wall on the base of your model is.

If not, i will make sure my Rosarius has a "modelled" shield i can start claiming Cover saves from

I certainly do not agree that the walls of the landing pad are ignored. They are terrain and a model can be 25% obscured behind them.

It's only that the Invul usually applies anyway that it gets over looked.

If it were me the sides look most like a barricade so I'd go with 4+.

In my local store we play it as 4+ cover if they up so you can gtg for a 3+. That is why it would matter b/c of gtg. We play w True LoS so if the walls are up you can take the 4+.

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Hills have a defined cover save - 4+

You are obscured by somethign that is NOT battlements - as a skyshield does not say they are - so you would get a 3+ cover save

I fully agree with this: if you are obscured behind the pad by one of the legs, yes.

However the OP is asking about the configuration on top giving Cover in addition to the 4++. However the rules state it is "open terrain", so unless you are within 3" of something on top (and therefore obscured by the pad itself) you only get the 4++ the "shielded" give you.

To simplify: The "wall" that moves up or down is ignored for the purpose of LoS cover saves. In the same way a Wall on the base of your model is.

If not, i will make sure my Rosarius has a "modelled" shield i can start claiming Cover saves from

Open terrain has no mvovement penalties associated with moving across it. It has no effect on whether or not it can also grant cover

The reason I was asking is for 2 different scenarios, both involve putting a unit that increases cover saves on the platform, either a Tyranid Venomthrope, or a Eldar warlock. Either way I am looking to make a well defended firebase for artillery or support weapons.
With the flaps up at lets say a 4+ cover save, the Buffing unit moves that to a 2+ cover, if hit by an ignores cover weapon, I could still get either the units base save or the force field save of 4+.

 Mythra wrote:
In my local store we play it as 4+ cover if they up so you can gtg for a 3+. That is why it would matter b/c of gtg. We play w True LoS so if the walls are up you can take the 4+.

Why wouldn't the wall be up?

Did the Skyshield get placed with the walls down, or are you changing the terrain mid game without any rules telling you to change the terrain pieces?

If your a tyranid player the walls should always be up, but other races have deep strikers that benefit from the no scatter deep strike while the walls are down.


Did they remove the ability to furl and unfurl the walls? Or are you saying that you just have to state which one your doing and have no permission to physically change the state of the model, even though its extremelly apparent that the RAI is you move the walls up and down.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
In my local store we play it as 4+ cover if they up so you can gtg for a 3+. That is why it would matter b/c of gtg. We play w True LoS so if the walls are up you can take the 4+.

Why wouldn't the wall be up?

Did the Skyshield get placed with the walls down, or are you changing the terrain mid game without any rules telling you to change the terrain pieces?

From the BRB, "At the beginning of the Movement phase, before rolling for reserves,
a model in base contact with a Skyshield Landing Pad can change
its configuration from shielded to unfurled (or vice versa). If there
are models from both sides in base contact with the landing pad, its
configuration cannot be changed."

Permission to change the model at the beginning of the movement phase.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
In my local store we play it as 4+ cover if they up so you can gtg for a 3+. That is why it would matter b/c of gtg. We play w True LoS so if the walls are up you can take the 4+.

Why wouldn't the wall be up?

Did the Skyshield get placed with the walls down, or are you changing the terrain mid game without any rules telling you to change the terrain pieces?

From the BRB, "At the beginning of the Movement phase, before rolling for reserves,
a model in base contact with a Skyshield Landing Pad can change
its configuration from shielded to unfurled (or vice versa). If there
are models from both sides in base contact with the landing pad, its
configuration cannot be changed."

Permission to change the model at the beginning of the movement phase.

No, that is not permission to change the terrain (It is not a model BTW).

That gives permission to use the Unfurled or Shielded configuration rules.

It does not say that you can physically manipulate and move parts of the terrain feature in question.

Eihnlazer wrote:
If your a tyranid player the walls should always be up, but other races have deep strikers that benefit from the no scatter deep strike while the walls are down.

That is not quite how the rules for the Skyshield work...

Did they remove the ability to furl and unfurl the walls? Or are you saying that you just have to state which one your doing and have no permission to physically change the state of the model, even though its extremelly apparent that the RAI is you move the walls up and down.

The rules let you go into shielded or unfurled configuration. You were never able to move parts of the terrain feature once you place the Skyshield on the table and the game starts...

You state weather you are changing the terrain to Shielded or Unfurled and have no permission to physically change the state of the terrain on the field. The Rules do not say to move parts of the terrain, so we can't.

There is an easy fix to someone who claims that you are unable to change the configuration of the terrain piece. Deploy it with the walls up, and place a sticky note on it to remind everyone that it is either "shielded" or "unfurled"

I agree with you strictly RAW that we arent given permission to change terrain after the game starts, but I also feel that RAI you can in the case of the skyshield.

Its extremely obvious honestly.

Eihnlazer wrote:
I agree with you strictly RAW that we arent given permission to change terrain after the game starts, but I also feel that RAI you can in the case of the skyshield.

Its extremely obvious honestly.

It is really not that obvious.

Nothing in the Shielded or Unfurled configuration tell you to move the walls on the terrain piece (Indeed sometimes this is not even possible because the parts have been glued in place).

I am surprised that people think they should move the terrain after it has been placed.

The game rules are abstract. They have to be otherwise the Skyshield would need a ramp so that tanks that Deep Strike onto it can get down off of it. But it does not have a ramp and you just move on and off with a DT test. thus the abstract nature of the ruleset.

The main reason i believe you should be able to move the wings up and down is because of balance acctually.

If you are deepstriking somthing down with no scatter, you shouldnt also recieve the invunerable or cover save. Its supposed to be a choice, one or the other, that a player has to make depending on the situation.

If you can leave the wings up, deepstrike with no scatter, and still get your saves, there is no negative with which to choose from.