Aegis Defense Lines and the 3+ Cover Save

Aegis Defense Lines Provide a 3+ cover save. Here's why:

Quote :

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.

Reviewing these quotes, it's clear that when they were written, it was intended for purpose-built fortifications(ie, ADL) to offer a 3+ cover save. In every instance of talking about "Fortifications", the only way to read it is as defined in the FoC section of the book. The book states that you may use these things as normal neutral terrain, or that you can purchase them as part of your FoC, in which case they are considered purpose-built fortifications, and offer a better cover save and armor.

Now, why then do SO MANY people quote them as being a 4+ cover save? Simple. In the "normal terrain" section of the BRB, it states defense lines offer a 4+ cover save. This is a generic term for a ruined wall, a bunker, or whatever. The aegis defense line's Terrain Type is defense line. That certainly adds a bit of confusion for the average onlooker, armed with all of the above information, so let's try to clear that up a bit.

Movement is important in 40k, and a big part of movement is understanding what kind of terrain you're crossing, and how that effects the movement of the unit that is crossing it. Due to this, every piece of terrain in the game has to be defined by a terrain type. In the case of generic, neutral terrain, like an un-owned defense line, it offers a generic cover save, which is also listed. This should not be mistaken for the cover save provided by purpose built fortifications, as described elsewhere. Purpose-built fortifications are simply given a terrain type to define how units move over and interact with them.

The absolute shameful part of this, is that I suspect people at GW who didn't write the rules, and don't play the game, don't even know the difference. It's like the people who work there don't even know the game that they write FAQs about sometimes.

RAW is convoluted in this case and can be argued either way.
RAI, in my opinion, is clear.

If you have any further doubts about RAI, chew on this: While I know many don't do this so much, the BRB encourages people to place their own terrain, taking turns as described in that section. Why would anyone ever buy an aegis defense line for 50 points that provides the same cover save as a ruined wall that they could place on the table for free?

Sorry but just because there is a discrepancy between two sections of the rulebook it doesn't mean that we simply pick the best one. The cover chart appears in the basic rules. Fortifications are advanced rules. The rules for the ADL take precedence over the cover chart on page 18. ADL is still 4+ cover save I'm afraid.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Sorry but just because there is a discrepancy between two sections of the rulebook it doesn't mean that we simply pick the best one. The cover chart appears in the basic rules. Fortifications are advanced rules. The rules for the ADL take precedence over the cover chart on page 18. ADL is still 4+ cover save I'm afraid.

The rules for ADL don't say to use a 4+ cover save. The generic terrain section says that you get...you know what, read the post. Every single section of the book, aside from a single line, supports 3+.

And the single line that supports 4+ is talking about generic terrain, NOT fortifications.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

While I know many don't do this so much, the BRB encourages people to place their own terrain, taking turns as described in that section. Why would anyone ever buy an aegis defense line for 50 points that provides the same cover save as a ruined wall that they could place on the table for free?

Because it's 30" of 4+ cover providing terrain that gives you a 2+ cover save when going to ground that you can place anywhere on your half of the board. That's enough to screen your whole army, unlike a regular piece of terrain (which are smaller and are limited to D3 per 2'x2' square). Not to mention almost every tournament has pre-set terrain making it even more potent in a competitive environment. The Aegis is an absolute bargain for it's cost, and that's with a 4+ cover save let alone the 3+ you suggest.

Hope that helps.

Mushkilla wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

While I know many don't do this so much, the BRB encourages people to place their own terrain, taking turns as described in that section. Why would anyone ever buy an aegis defense line for 50 points that provides the same cover save as a ruined wall that they could place on the table for free?

Because it's 30" of 4+ cover providing terrain that gives you a 2+ cover save when going to ground that you can place anywhere on your half of the board. That's enough to screen your whole army, unlike a regular piece of terrain (which are smaller and are limited to D3 per 2'x2' square). Not to mention almost every tournament has pre-set terrain making it even more potent in a competitive environment. The Aegis is an absolute bargain for it's cost, and that's with a 4+ cover save let alone the 3+ you suggest.

Hope that helps.

Please read all the quotes from the book. There is a single line that supports 4+, and that is in the wrong section. Everything else in the book supports and refers to it being a 3+ fortification.

I was just explianing why it's worth it's points even as 4+ cover.

The rules are quite clear. The Aegis Defence Line is of the battlefield debris (defence lines) type. It follows the rules for defence lines on page 104 and therefore confers a 4+ cover save.

If the Aegis defence line did not specify it's type I would agree that it would indeed grant a 3+ cover save. However it does specify what it is and what rules it uses, and those are the rules for battlefield debris (defence lines). Which grant a 4+ cover save.

Specific rules override general rules.

What your saying is:

The general rules for fortifications say they confer 3+ cover saves. The specific rules for the aegis defence line say that it confers a 4+ cover save. The Aegis defence line confers a 3+ cover save because the general rules say that fortifications confer 3+ cover saves.

Which is like saying:

The general rules for shooting say a model can only fire one weapon. The specific rules for monstrous creatures say that they can fire two weapons. The monstrous creature is a model and therefore can only fire one weapon because the general rules say that models can only fire one weapon.

Does that explain the flaws in your logic?

Mushkilla wrote:

I was just explianing why it's worth it's points even as 4+ cover.

The rules are quite clear. The Aegis Defence Line is of the battlefield debris (defence lines) type. It follows the rules for defence lines on page 104 and therefore confers a 4+ cover save.

If the Aegis defence line did not specify it's type I would agree that it would indeed grant a 3+ cover save. However it does specify what it is and what rules it uses, and those are the rules for battlefield debris (defence lines). Which grant a 4+ cover save.

Specific rules override general rules.

What your saying is:

The general rules for fortifications say they confer 3+ cover saves. The specific rules for the aegis defence line say that it confers a 4+ cover save. The Aegis defence line confers a 3+ cover save because the general rules say that fortifications confer 3+ cover saves.

Which is like saying:

The general rules for shooting say a model can only fire one weapon. The specific rules for monstrous creatures say that they can fire two weapons. The monstrous creature is a model and therefore can only fire one weapon because the general rules say that models can only fire one weapon.

Does that explain the flaws in your logic?

No. The aegis defense line doesn't say it gets a 4+ cover save. That is being drawn from the general/generic rules for Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines), which covers all the generic crumbling walls on a battlefield, and dilapidated, abandoned defense lines. The book specifically describes a distinction between generic battlefield terrain, and fortifications purchased as part of your FoC. It specifically says that fortifications purchased as part of your FoC, while it could be the EXACT SAME MODEL as a standard piece of terrain, is defined as a "Purpose-built fortification." It goes on to say that purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save.

The only reason it lists terrain type for the ADL, is that all pieces of terrain must be defined for movement purposes. There are specific rules for moving over defense lines, so it had to be defined as such. All other fortifications have a Terrain Type that doesn't list a cover save at all in the terrain type section. Does that mean they confer no cover save at all? Of course not. Being Terrain Type: Medium Building, doesn't stop something from being a "Purpose-Built fortification" any more or less than being Terrain Type: Battlefield Debris(Defense Line).

The fortification rules overrule the generic terrain rules, because you're paying for a better wall.

EDIT: Also, I'd appreciate if anyone responding in this thread would contain their snarkiness before I cut mine loose, please. I'm trying to maintain a civil, intelligent conversation here. We can do so without being jerks to one another.

To me it's a 4+ save.

But if you can agree it is 3+ with your opponent then more power to you

The rules for Fortifications on page 114 say:

Quote :

Terrain Type. This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your fortification. This can be anything from a line of barricades to a large building.

In the section for Terrain Type for an ADL, on the very same page, we are told that it is Battlefield Debris (Defence Lines). The rules for this appear on page 104 and say:

Quote :

Defence lines follow all the same rules for barricades and walls...

The rules for Barricades and Walls, a few inches to the left of that say:

Quote :

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

I don't care how much you would like it to be otherwise, an ADL provides a 4+ cover save.

Count Adhemar wrote:

The rules for Fortifications on page 114 say:
I don't care how much you would like it to be otherwise, an ADL provides a 4+ cover save.

Only if you're ignoring the rules for fortifications. Let me ask you this: If a vehicle is obscured behind an imperial bastion, what cover save do they get?

The obvious point that's being missed is: If it was intended to be 3+, why would they make it +2 to coversaves if going to ground behind it? This would make a 1+ coversave which is impossible of course. Therefore there would be no need to add 2, only to have to re-adjust to a 2+, which would just be stupid! Personally I have no truck with defense lines anyhow, I feel they are way too out of character for a Dark Eldar army. Maybe I would be willing to use one if I made a nice scratch-built 'wall of flesh' type thing, brewed up in my Haemonculus' workshop!


My bad! just re-read that section.(about vehicles cover) whoops!

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

The rules for Fortifications on page 114 say:
I don't care how much you would like it to be otherwise, an ADL provides a 4+ cover save.

Only if you're ignoring the rules for fortifications. Let me ask you this: If a vehicle is obscured behind an imperial bastion, what cover save do they get?

I just quoted the exact wording of the rules for the Aegis Defence Line so I'm not quite sure how you class that as ignoring them? Unlike, for example, someone who is told that a basic rule (the cover chart) is superceded by an advanced rule (Fortifications) but completely ignores that point.

As for your question, I'd happily agree that it is a 3+ cover save in that situation because there are, the best of my knowledge, no rules regarding the bastion that would contradict the cover chart on page 18. Unlike, say, the Aegis Defence Line.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

The rules for Fortifications on page 114 say:
I don't care how much you would like it to be otherwise, an ADL provides a 4+ cover save.

Only if you're ignoring the rules for fortifications. Let me ask you this: If a vehicle is obscured behind an imperial bastion, what cover save do they get?

5+

Ill let our resident rules lawyer finish this for me; This is Tiri Rana from Fortifcation Cover Saves

Quote :

The problem is that 'cover fortifications' aren't the same as 'fortifications'.
BRB p.18 wrote:
Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save...


So every piece of terrain that was purpose-built as a fortification confers a 3+ cover save, be it a bunker, fort or battery tower.

All bought fortifications should fall into that category, of course, but battlements and Aegis defence lines don't.
And your table could include many terrain pieces that confer a 3+ cover save without being a 'fortification'.

Additionally a unit or vehicle can get a cover save from being partially behind a building so an Imperial fortress could still grant a 3+ cover save.

The problem is that these rules are not only written sloppily, but also contradict each other.

The BRB just uses the old table from 4th and 5th edition, when the term fortification had no in-game value, unlike today.
Furthermore there are terrain pieces that clearly should be purpose-built fortifications but aren't, like trenches or defence lines while other terrain pieces aren't purpose-built fortifications and have, at least in my eyes, no right to be better than a 'normal' concrete wall, like the Imperial Statuary.

So there you have it. The cover save chart is a guideline to which you judge pieces of terrain before battle. The ADL is a flat 4+ coversave due to its special rule that is clearly stated on Pg. 104

Maybe usual fortification walls, as terrain, are tougher than the portable ones you carry into battle...?

psycheer wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

The rules for Fortifications on page 114 say:
I don't care how much you would like it to be otherwise, an ADL provides a 4+ cover save.

Only if you're ignoring the rules for fortifications. Let me ask you this: If a vehicle is obscured behind an imperial bastion, what cover save do they get?

5+

Actually I think it is 3+, as a Bastion is a fortification and has no specific rule saying otherwise as is the case with the ADL. Most people think that vehicles get only a flat 5+ for obscurement but that is incorrect by my reading of the rules. and please correct me if I am wrong, misinterpretations happen.

Page 74-75 list the exemptions fro vehicle cover. needs 25% of the "facing" covered to be obscured. Then on 75 it says that if a piece of wargear or a special rule would make a vehicle obscured then it gets a flat 5+. This is where the confusion comes in as GW uses the same term to describe the vehicle getting cover and for a vehicle having a special rule or wargear give it a cover save, but if you look in the same paragraph it says that vehicles take cover saves exactly like non-vehicle models and then says you would get a 5+ for woods and so on. Latter on the same page in the Obscured Vehicles example they give the Rhino a 4+ for being obscured by ruins, they actually use that word, and then show the modifier to that cover in picture three as getting a +1 for a 3+ cover.

Basically cover for vehicles works almost the same as for other models the terrain does grant cover saves to the vehicle like other models but cover is calculated based on the facing that the shot comes from not the entire model itself and if you have a special rule or wargear then it is a flat 5+.

Red

redwulfe wrote:

a Bastion is a fortification and has no specific rule saying otherwise as is the case with the ADL.

The ADL doesn't have any such special rule.

The generic terrain type: Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines), has those special rules. There are defense lines that are NOT aegis defense lines. This is a generic/general example, and not at all specific.

The ADL is a more specific type of Battlefield Debris(Defense Lines), that follows all of the rules for defense lines, except that it is also a fortification, and therefore confers a 3+ cover save.

By the strictest interpretation of the rules, it's possible for something to have more than one save, and in such a case, you use the better one. One part of the book says 3+, another says 4+. I guess it confers both, and you'd use the better of the two. Rules as written.

This is getting a little monotonous now. Go ahead and try to claim your 3+ save. You will of course be accused of cheating. It's been explained to you why you are wrong and, quite literally, everyone else is right but you seem unable to grasp the simple idea of reading the rules for the damn thing, which have even helpfully been copied out for you in this thread.

Enjoy the many arguments that you are going to have, and lose, on this issue.

Can't believe this thread exists it clearly states on pg104 of rule book what a defence line does.

Thread should be locked

Yeah but it's funny watching someone so determinedly flogging a dead horse. Perhaps Findus would be interested? The guy could probably provide enough meat for a couple of thousand frozen lasagnes!

That has just made me laugh out loud

this is funny....

HOWEVER.

I do understand the logic of why you're saying it should be 3+

My friend and i had the same debate.

What settled it for us was actually the White Dwarf magazine when 6th ed first came out. If you have that issue, take a read through the description of the terrain etc. In it, they actually definitively state that an Aegis defense line gives a 4+ cover save.

So although I understand the connection of the logic that you've made. GW has actually published the answer in that magazine issue.