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.

JinxDragon wrote:
Happyjew,
I was stating there was no defense line debris entry, period, how then would we calculate it as there would be no Specific Rule designed for it?

Should you be willing to then default to the Wall entry, on the grounds it looks most like a wall, then a follow up question is raised:
What prevents the wall like protrusions of any fortification piece from being treated as walls?

Though honestly, given how they changed battlements to be 'walls' pre-Stronghold assault, the mentality of 'if it looks like a wall, it is a wall' is probably the Writers Intent and that includes the Skyshield.

OK that explains it. Though looking through the rest of the Battlefield Debris, specifically "Hill Crest" I would change my HIWPI to being a 4+, not a 5+.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Interesting side point but that raises a few question:
What then makes the Bastion a fortification?
What prevents the Ages defense line from generating both?

Nothing prevents the ADL from giving both cover saves that's the point i'm making. If being a Fortification in the FOC makes them give 3+ cover, then all of them have to give 3+ cover including the ADL.

If you aren't going to let the ADL count as a fortification for 3+ cover, then none of the fortifications can give 3+ cover either.

Except for the advanced vs basic rules on page 7

Since the advanced rule gives the ADL a 4+ cover save, it overrides the fortification 3+ cover save, since the rules contradict.

there is no rules contradiction here. It has both, and you get the 3+ because its the better save

CrownAxe,
This also keeps circling around my real concern to all this: The question of 'how then do we calculate if something is a fortification?'

Please provide me with a page informing us on how to calculate if the entries in the fortification section meet the requirements to be considered fortifications, that is if all entries in this section are not fortifications by default.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Interesting side point but that raises a few question:
What then makes the Bastion a fortification?
What prevents the Ages defense line from generating both?

Nothing prevents the ADL from giving both cover saves that's the point i'm making. If being a Fortification in the FOC makes them give 3+ cover, then all of them have to give 3+ cover including the ADL.

If you aren't going to let the ADL count as a fortification for 3+ cover, then none of the fortifications can give 3+ cover either.

Except for the advanced vs basic rules on page 7

Since the advanced rule gives the ADL a 4+ cover save, it overrides the fortification 3+ cover save, since the rules contradict.

there is no rules contradiction here. It has both, and you get the 3+ because its the better save

One rule states it confers a 3+ cover save, one rule states it confers a 4+ cover save...

That is contradictory and the advanced rule takes precedence and the ADL gets a 4+ cover save.

JinxDragon wrote:
CrownAxe,
This also keeps circling around my real concern to all this: The question of 'how then do we calculate if something is a fortification?'

Please provide me with a page informing us on how to calculate if the entries in the fortification section meet the requirements to be considered fortifications, that is if all entries in this section are not fortifications by default.

The same way you decide on cover for everything, you and your opponent agree on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

One rule states it confers a 3+ cover save, one rule states it confers a 4+ cover save...

That is contradictory and the advanced rule takes precedence and the ADL gets a 4+ cover save.

It's not contradictory. It generates both because it meets both requirements and then you use the best cover save because having more then save as per page 19

Crownaxe,
While the terrain rules do contain a line stating that your opponent should talk about terrain and agree on details, technical the book starts with a rule telling us we can discuss with our opponents any aspect of the book and change it at our leisure.

Therefore, for the purpose of Rule debates in an organized forum, we focus on only the default methods outlined by the rule book themselves and not the house rules we might derive at the table top. Like wise, if two players can not agree on some rule change it often falls back to 'default rules' in those situations. So even with your answer I, being a pain in the arse today, could easily state that I refuse to allow any rule changes away from the defaults and we are back at square one. All this highlights why the answer of 'decide on it yourself as per the golden rule' is not a valid answer to the question I have put forth. We have been provided with a set of 'default rules' for terrain, where in these rules is the instructions on how to determine fortifications?

Then how do you determine cover for terrain that's not listed in the rulebook?

Personally I've always read it as there being two types of Fortification.

One being purchasable terrain that fills the Fortification slot.
The other being armoured fortified buildings, found on the cover chart.

And Aegis is a purchased fortification, but not the terrain type Fortification listed in the cover charts.

Problem with that Grendel083,
There is no such thing as terrain type: fortification.
That is the core of the problem, if you look at the fortification data sheet for the Bastion it lists it only as 'medium building' and nothing to state it is the fortification it clearly is meant to be.

Crownaxe,
Can you provide me with an example that doesn't fall into area terrain, forest, ruins, battle-field debris or the dozens of other rules we have for determining what the terrain type is?

The point im trying to make is simply being a fortification in the FOC shouldn't determine cover type and there for the Skyshield should give a 3+. Because if your going to do so then the ADL should also give a 3+ but if your not going to let the ADL give 3+ why insist on still letting the skyshield give a 3+


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:

Can you provide me with an example that doesn't fall into area terrain, forest, ruins, battle-field debris or the dozens of other rules we have for determining what the terrain type is?

A fridge

 CrownAxe wrote:
The point im trying to make is simply being a fortification in the FOC shouldn't determine cover type and there for the Skyshield should give a 3+. Because if your going to do so then the ADL should also give a 3+ but if your not going to let the ADL give 3+ why insist on still letting the skyshield give a 3+

As I said, Page 7 stops the ADL from being a 3+ cover save as the advanced rule states it is a 4+ cover save.

The basic rules state Fortifications confer a 3+, the Advanced rule states the ADL (A Fortification) confers a 4+, the advanced rule wins due to page 7.

 CrownAxe wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Can you provide me with an example that doesn't fall into area terrain, forest, ruins, battle-field debris or the dozens of other rules we have for determining what the terrain type is?

A fridge

That would be Battlefield Debris...

Crownaxe:
A fridge would be battlefield detritus and fits under Wreckage and Rubble.

JinxDragon wrote:
Crownaxe:
A fridge would be battlefield detritus and fits under Wreckage and Rubble.

this fridge is 5" tall how is it just debris

When does the size of the terrain piece change what it is?

If I crafted a single piece of forest terrain into 'real world sizes' and placed it down on the table top... it would still be a forest and treated as such.
The fact you are placing a piece of detritus the size of a real world fridge doesn't stop it from being a piece of battlefield detritus.

JinxDragon wrote:
When does the size of the terrain piece change what it is?

why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster

and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.

Because the Rules have never taken 'size' or even 'the third dimension' into account very well changes nothing. If the rules do not state the size of an object changes what it is, then the size of the object doesn't have any impact onto what it is. The only thing that matters is what the rules state it is, and how the rules interact with what that object is. As Wreckage and Rubble rules do not state that the piece in question has to be under a minimal size, it could take up the entire battlefield and still fall under this one heading.

As for a bloodthrister:
If the unit in question is being placed as some sort of 'corpse' on the battlefield then it would once more fall under Wreckage and Rubble, because it is detritus left from a previous battle.
However, if you really want to get down to it, we only have permission to place terrain pieces as terrain... not place models with a unit type.

 CrownAxe wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
When does the size of the terrain piece change what it is?

why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster

and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.

One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+.

This is what the English language calls a contradiction.

The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
When does the size of the terrain piece change what it is?

why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster

and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.

One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+.

This is what the English language calls a contradiction.

The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.

This shirt is green, this shirt is red.

Is it a contridition? No because its both green and red

If being listed along with all of the other Fortifications and costing "fortification" points to purchase as well as having a rule which says a model in base contact can change the configuration of the landing pad doesn't say to you that the sky shield landing pad is a Fortification that can be moved during the game then there is little point in discussing any of this.

An Icarus Lascannon is a piece of terrain, there is no express permission to move it during the game however everyone accepts that the mounting can be traversed to fire at a target.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
When does the size of the terrain piece change what it is?

why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster

and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.

One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+.

This is what the English language calls a contradiction.

The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.

This shirt is green, this shirt is red.

Is it a contridition? No because its both green and red

That is not even remotely the same situation. Your analogy has nothing to do with the 40K ruleset.

The general rule says this wall gives a 3+ cover save. the advanced rule says the same wall gives a 4+ cover save.

One says 3+ the other says 4+, which is it, it does not confer both because they both give the wall its cover save value. This is a contradiction even though your argument ignores this fact.

Page 7 says advanced beats general thus the 4+ for the ADL trumps the 3+ for a general fortification.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
An Icarus Lascannon is a piece of terrain, there is no express permission to move it during the game however everyone accepts that the mounting can be traversed to fire at a target.

Why would it matter, you do not need to have Line of Sight from the Icarus Lascannon to anything, only the model firing it needs Line of Sight. (Page 105)

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
When does the size of the terrain piece change what it is?

why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster

and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.

One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+.

This is what the English language calls a contradiction.

The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.

Absolutely false. Please cite a rule showing that terrain can only ever confer one cover save - your statement requires it.

Dr - for your statement to be correct, you have yo have a rule stating that a piece of terrain can only have one cover save value. Can you provide it?

So, what prevents it from providing a 3+ cover save?

Where in the book can I find the formula to determine if something in the fortification section of the book is a fortification or not?

JinxDragon wrote:
So, what prevents it from providing a 3+ cover save?

Where in the book can I find the formula to determine if something in the fortification section of the book is a fortification or not?

does anything state: terrain type: fortification?


according to the guys that run the tournies in my neck of the woods, there are no fortifications in the game. You'd think strong hold assault would have added some, but they didn't.

Yes you buy them as a fortification, but they are not fortifications. They are buildings, and debris, and other unique things.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
When does the size of the terrain piece change what it is?

why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster

and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.

One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+.

This is what the English language calls a contradiction.

The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.

Absolutely false. Please cite a rule showing that terrain can only ever confer one cover save - your statement requires it.

Because that is how terrain works.

They only give one cover save...

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
When does the size of the terrain piece change what it is?

why wouldn't it. But fine if not that then how about a bloodthirster

and deathreaper, its still not a contradiction. The rules have to not work in coexistence to be a contridiction.

One says the terrain confers a 3+, another source says it confers a 4+.

This is what the English language calls a contradiction.

The rules do not work in coexistence, since one rule says the terrain confers a 3+ and another says that exact same terrain piece confers a 4+. They literally contradict each other. Thus the advanced rule of 4+ trumps the general rule of 3+.

Absolutely false. Please cite a rule showing that terrain can only ever confer one cover save - your statement requires it.

Because that is how terrain works.

They only give one cover save...

Then you can produce a rule to shows that

No, it is a permissive ruleset, you have to show the rule that says a single piece of terrain can have multiple save values.

Not the other way around...

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is a permissive ruleset, you have to show the rule that says a single piece of terrain can have multiple save values.

Not the other way around...

I have two rules saying what cover ADL provides (its terrain description and being a fortification) that's my permission.

You need an exception to change that.

SirLynchMob,
That is the core of what I am trying to raise, it seems we simply do not have instructions telling us what is and isn't a fortification. Yet people seem more then willing to state that models 25% obscured by a Bastion gains a 3+ cover save because it is a 'fortification.' I have been just trying to find a formula or some sort of logical reasoning, backed by Rule support, that informs us how to determine if X or Y is a 'fortification' which grants a 3+ cover save. Right now we seem to be in a situation where nothing meets the requirement, or everything listed in that section of the book meets the requirement. I'm just looking for some way out, but it seems the debate has now degraded into if a Defense Line can grant more then the 4+.

JinxDragon wrote:
SirLynchMob,
That is the core of what I am trying to raise, it seems we simply do not have instructions telling us what is and isn't a fortification. Yet people seem more then willing to state that models 25% obscured by a Bastion gains a 3+ cover save because it is a 'fortification.' I have been just trying to find a formula or some sort of logical reasoning, backed by Rule support, that informs us how to determine if X or Y is a 'fortification' which grants a 3+ cover save. Right now we seem to be in a situation where nothing meets the requirement, or everything listed in that section of the book meets the requirement. I'm just looking for some way out, but it seems the debate has now degraded into if a Defense Line can grant more then the 4+.

pg 91

it's always worth taking the time to talk to your opponent about the terrain you're using.

This is really a rules as agreed upon area.

if your group agrees it's a fortification than it is. If they don't agree then it's not.

Trying to reach any kind of global consensus is just not going to happen unless it ever gets addressed in a FAQ.