Cover saves for Fortifications.

[Harley]

Simple but beardy question. If Barricades are taken as an upgrade for a Firestorm Redoubt, and are placed in front of it, would they provide the Fortification with a cover save, having obscured it by 25%?

If so, and the Redoubt had a Void Shield upgrade, would the cover save extend to the armor 12 Void Shield as well?

[Angelofblades]

I believe this is answered in the 40k FAQ. No cover saves for fortifications.

[Harley]

I searched the FAQ for every instance of the words "Fortification", "Building" and "Cover" and didn't find anything related to this. :/

[Angelofblades]

I was pretty sure I had seen it before...I was recently looking at the FAQ too because I had a question about blessings and arriving from reserves and found my answer there. For some reason I was thinking I had seen it there.

[Tynskel]

Fortifications may receive cover saves as long as all the related rules for cover saves are followed.

Those are some pretty large barricades, and I wouldn't be surprised that an opponent might be someone annoyed.

[Nabterayl]

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with this.

[John Bower]

If you're following the correct scale for the barricades then no, they won't obscure 25% of the Firestorm anyhow. They're only around half the height of a normal figure. Nowhere near enough to cover 25% of a Firestorm.

[Harley]

If you're following the correct scale for the barricades then no, they won't obscure 25% of the Firestorm anyhow. They're only around half the height of a normal figure. Nowhere near enough to cover 25% of a Firestorm.

I thought the Aegis defense line was the closest thing GW made to imperial style barricades?

[Harley]

Had this recently come up at a game, so I am still wondering about this. The BRB says "Units may shoot at or charge an occupied building just as if it was a vehicle" Despite this, someone claimed that a Fortification isn't expressly a "vehicle" and since the rules of the game are permissive, no where in the BRB did it say that Fortifications would be granted cover saves from intervening models (5+), Nightfight (Stealth) etc.

But by that logic, couldn't one also claim that Melta/Fusion weapons do not work against Fortifications since Melta only expressly "when rolling to penetrate a vehicle's Armour..."

[Nabterayl]

Fortifications in general aren't vehicles; your friend is right about that. But I would not accept that a building being a vehicle for shooting purposes means it doesn't benefit from cover saves. Determining what sort of save a model is entitled to is part of resolving a shooting attack against it.

[Harley]

Good call Nabterayl, cover saves are on a model/target basis, not by model "type" under the section about the shooting phase. So any model or target, regardless of it's type, gets a cover save if it is obscured 25%, in area terrain or has intervening models in the way.

Now, what about the wording on Melta? It seems safe to say that Melta doesn't work against Fortifications. Even if one argued that shooting at them was handled "just as if" it were a vehicle, that only covers shooting, not penetrating/wounding.

[Gleipnir]

Nothing in the rules prevents cover saves for buildings, though the rules for shooting at the buildings use vehicle rules so you would need the save 25% cover rules which requires some good amount of barricade cover or a low profile building to receive, The Imperial Bunker model could likely receive 25% but the Firestorm Redoubt is taller and wider, so would likely require an intervening Ruin to receive any such save.

In regard to Void Shields being permitted the cover save, the answer would be no, as cover saves are applied after wounds and armor penetration is determined while Void Shields redirect from the targeted model to the Void Shield as a part of being roll To Hit before Armor Penetration rolls. As Void Shields themselves are not a unit/model or represented outside of being a rule attached to something their is no method to determine intervening terrain to one.

[Nabterayl]

I don't think that's a valid way to break things down. If wounding/penetration rolls aren't part of shooting at a target, what is? Are we going to start saying that rolling to hit isn't part of shooting, too? Much better to interpret "shooting" as page 12 does: the entire process from nominating a unit to make a shooting attack through the resolution of casualties.

[Gleipnir]

wounds/armor penetration is resolved after to hit is resolved and void shields interrupt where to hits are applied. You can't target a void shield(its an ephermal rule not a model). Same way a Power Field covering a building protected by a Void Shield doesn't give your Void Shield a magical 4+ invulnerable save to Armor Penetration rolls.

[Harley]

I tend to agree with Gleipnir about the Void Shield getting cover.

In this particular game, it was argued that although there are no rules which prevent cover saves on buildings, there are also no rules which explicitly permit them to. However I think that the bit about treating shooting at Fortifications just as if they were vehicles is more than enough evidence. In the very least P.18 of the BRB says "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view... it receives a 5+ cover save" which sets precedence that regardless of what type of unit a "target" is, it receives applicable cover.

What I am curious about now are Melta and Ordnance weapons. Interestingly, USRs which expressly effect “Vehicles”, such as Melta and Ordnance, do not seem to effect Fortifications (any more than they would effect Monstrous Creatures or Cavalry) since Fortifications have their own entry, damage table etc. Precedence for this seems to be that other USRs explicitly mention “Armour Penetration”, rather than "Vehicle", such as Haywire and Armourbane, would would function the same regardless of the type of armour they hit.

[Gleipnir]

Well buildings are treated in all respects as Transport Vehicles with some exceptions regarding being immobile, and lacking Hull Points, and substituting how glancing hits and penetrating hits are resolved.

So Armuorbane, Haywire, Melta and Ordinance would all behave as they would normally when applied to a building the same way they would be applied to a Rhino, unless their special rule specifies it has no effect on buildings as is the case with Graviton weapons.

[John Bower]

I would argue that in many places it is stated that Melta weapons are meant for cutting into buildings/armour equally. So should affect buildings the same. It comes down to a problem where GW have a really bad habit of 'copy/pasting' rules from earlier editions without proof reading how they will work in a new version. Fifth didn't really have 'buildings' as such, only in Planetstrike where we know they were affected by any weapon that affected vehicles the same way. Though back then glancing hits were more punishing on everything than they are now especially buildings.

[Harley]

Thanks guys, I'll keep these in mind next time I play.

If I do run into an opponent who just insists that Forts don't get cover saves, then I will assert that by the same logic both Melta and Ordnance have no bonus against them either. It seems pretty clear though that for all intents and purposes all Forts and Buildings are just treated as stationary "Vehicles". Now if only that Skyshield were so simple :P