Skyshield Landing Pad

This is listed in the Fortifications section of the rulebook (page 115). This says:

Quote :

Units on top of a shielded Skyshield Landing Pad have a 4+ invulnerable save against enemy Shooting attacks

Under cover saves (page 18), fortifications are shown as giving a 3+ cover save. Assuming I have the model of the landing pad with the side panels 'up', like this:



If I place a model on the pad and it is 25% or more hidden from a unit firing at it, can I choose to take a 3+ cover save instead of the 4+ invulnerable?

The answer to me seems to be a straightforward "yes" but I'm sure I will encounter arguments so just wanted to sound out some other opinions.

I would have to say no.

Specific rules always over-ride general ones. Much like an Aegis defense line, which is also technically a fortification, only gives a 4+ cover save.

Personally I have found that there is almost no scenario when you'll get the 3+ save other than a "purpose built fortification" that you and your opponent agree counts as such.

I see what you're saying but the Skyshield rules make no mention of invalidating cover saves. They give you an invulnerable but why would that remove a cover save that, in any other situation, would apply?

Oops! I hadn't looked at the words closely enough to see that it was a 4+ invulnerable save rather than a cover save.

You have given me pause for thought. I suspect you'll get arguements to say that it is effectively a battlement from a cover save persepective rather than a fortification cover save. But that said I do think you'd have a viable arguement to the contrary.

Very interesting. I am going to have to discuss that one with my gaming group as there is certainly merit to your position. We've been struggling to figure out when the 3+ cover save for fortifications in the book would apply, and this may be a valid example.

that sir...is a really good question lol i have no clue

I suspect the 3+ fortification is actually a copy paste from 5e. I mainly want to know because a) 3+ is obviously better than 4+ unless you're up against Ignore Cover weapons and b) you can't got to ground with an invulnerable but you can with a cover (2+ cover save in this case).

i guess id go with both until someone can prove otherwise

I've e-mailed the GW gamefaqs address so maybe they'll answer in the next FAQ.

personally I would say no, as the 3+ fortification rule is from 5th and what the model is. Its basically if you arent using one of GW pieces of terrain and need to give a piece of terrain a numerical cover save. Its like saying that the ADL is a fortification and gives you a 3+ coversave due to that rule.

Although I would say its GW's terrible writing at work, I dont think you get both.