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.

Mainly the word "IN" and the first paragraph of that page is clear as to why that is not allowed.

But as the statement on p37 of "4+ while obscured" is no where else in the book, i agree that it's not clear for the 25%.
But:

Page 77 wrote:it must take a cover save, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin and so on)

it would not be "exactly like" if infantry had a 5+ at 25%, and this is RaW, not picture captions.

Yeah, I was referring to this and saw nothing re-butting said sentence yet.

BlackTalos,
The question was to people whom claim the Model's do not have to be in the boundary to gain the 4+ cover save.

Sigvatr,
There are three counters to this I would like you to think on, I will put them in bullet point to try and avoid Wall of Text syndrome.

First:
Determining Cover Saves are detailed within it's own section, containing Rules stating that all Cover Saves to Obscured Models are 5+ unless over-turned by a specific Rule
All the Rules for each individual Scenery Pieces will be found on their Datasheets, cover save for sure as those things change so often, so even if the Terrain section informs us what most values would look like it is still the Datasheet which matters
Therefore, even if the example was Written Rules, it would still be over-turned by all Datasheets on the grounds of 'Specific vs General'

It all comes down to the Datasheet these days....

Second:
No where in that example does it state where the Vehicle was located
Given that the Cover Save can change based on where the Model is located, this is a veritable we must have before we verify if the example is giving us the correct number
For all we know, the Vehicle could be located within the boundary of a Ruin and in that case the example is correct, assuming the piece in question's Datasheet contains the default Ruin Rule.

Third:
When one of the following rules refers to a model being ‘in cover behind’ a piece of terrain, this means that the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenery, and therefore eligible for a cover save. On the other hand, when one of the following rules refers to a model being ‘in’ a piece of terrain, this means that model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not.

Quoted from the start of the Terrain section, well one or two page in when it gets to the actual Rules...
Unless the Rule states "in cover behind" it is only evocable to models standing in the boundary of that scenery piece.

JinxDragon wrote:
BlackTalos,
The question was to people whom claim the Model's do not have to be in the boundary to gain the 4+ cover save.

Sigvatr,
There are two counters to this I would like you to think on,
First:
It is the Determining Cover Saves section which contains instructions on how to determine these Saves, Rules stating that all Cover Saves to Obscured Models are 5+ unless otherwise stated
All the Rules for the individual Scenery Pieces are found on their Datasheets, so even if the default is X we can not say that the individual piece in question has X without first referring to it's Sheet
This example is not found on a Datasheet, therefore it is not valid to quote unless it the Datasheet in question also supports it
It all comes down to the Datasheet these days....

That is incorrect. If at one point in the rulebook, it says that something gets X, it gets X unless another part of the BRB or a FAQ contradicts it. This ain't the case here, therefore, RAW, you gotta play it as presented in the cover chapter. Ruins are explicitely stated as granting a 4+ on at least two different places, as presented above.

No where in that example does it state where the Vehicle was located

Precisely. Unless stated otherwise, every piece of ruin grants any vehicle a 4+ if obscured. Not stated otherwise, it gets the 4+.

Please do note I added a third reason, want to address that one as it is a direct Rule quote?

As for your 'counters:'
First:
Or Datasheets, if they didn't over-write the Rule book then any Rule changes within would not be evocable

Second:
When you have a veritable which can change the outcome, and a conclusion, it is possible to work backwards to find out what that veritable was
It is not correct to state that the conclusion is always valid, that the unknown veritable can be ignored, by placing an additional Requirement for any alternative conclusions to specifically state they over-turn the first conclusion

In this situation the only way that example would be correct is if the Vehicle was in the boundary of the Ruin to begin with, so the vehicle must of been in the boundary of a Ruin.....

Page 108 defines cover saves. Page 77 adds an additional restriction to vehicles, that they must always be obscured. Page 77 does not define what cover saves are, it merely gives an ilistrutive example. This example (and the one on p37) are causing confusion with their wording, but they are not rules.

Page 77 described exactly how cover for vehicles works by saying that it works in the exact same way as it does for Infantry with the "following exceptions". Those mainly introduce the obscured restriction, which in short means that vehicles never get a cover save for merely being inside cover, they only get it when being obscured. Being obscured is defined right above and introduces the 25% per facing rule.

This outright smashes down any argument saying that vehicles in any example get a cover save for being "in" it. Vehicles don't get a cover save for being woods, ruins etc. It is explicitely stated right on this page. The example is perfectly clear as well and strictly follows the rules presented above.

I have no idea why there's so much confusion.

Theres a subtle difference. To obey the rules on page 108 and p77 you would have to be both 'in' and 'obscured' to gain the 4+.

Still wondering your counter to the whole 'the Rulebook states the only way to evoke the Ruin Rule would be by having the Model physically located in the Ruin's Boundary:'
When one of the following rules refers to a model being ‘in cover behind’ a piece of terrain, this means that the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenery, and therefore eligible for a cover save. On the other hand, when one of the following rules refers to a model being ‘in’ a piece of terrain, this means that model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not.


Therefore the Ruin Rule granting a 4+ Cover Save is only evocable by being in the Ruin boundary, so the example must be related to a Vehicle that is both in and obscured by a Ruin to be correct.

Ah, now I get it. Thanks for giving the page number

...but I then again fail to see the problem

p.77 introduces the 25% rule, and p. 108 is more specific as it mentions the 25% rule in detail, therefore, it overrules what is said on page 77 and all models (including vehicles) get a 4+ in ruins, obscured or not.

The rulebook does seem to be contradicting itself.

The ruins rules on p108 only say "model in ruins", which suggests that units who are only 25% obscured by ruins would get the standard 5+ cover save, since they only have permission to use the better 4+ cover save if they are in the ruins.

The examples on p37 and p77 explicitly mention units getting a 4+ cover save from being 25% obscured by ruins (neither unit in these example is in the ruins). That seems to suggest that cover saves from 25% obscured should be the same as what you get from being in the terrain.

I agree that RAW, ruins only grant 5+ cover saves from 25% obscurement - the rules trump the examples, even though they are contradictory. I think this is probably an error in the ruins rules, but we won't know the true answer unless they put out an FAQ. Our gaming group is going to play it the way the examples suggest - that the cover save you get from being 25% obscured is the same as though you were actually in the terrain.

I'm penning '4+ Cover Saves to Models Obscured behind Ruins' on all the Ruin Datasheets I see....

As far as I can see, there are three cases:

a) A vehicle is in ruins and its facing is at least 25% obscured => 4+ (p.77/p.108)

b) A vehicle is in ruins and its facing is not or les than 25% obscured => 4+ (p.108)

c) A vehicle is not in ruins, but part of ruins obscure its facing by at least 25% => 4+ (p.77)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DanielBeaver wrote:

I agree that RAW, ruins only grant 5+ cover saves from 25% obscurement - the rules trump the examples, even though they are contradictory. I think this is probably an error in the ruins rules, but we won't know the true answer unless they put out an FAQ. Our gaming group is going to play it the way the examples suggest - that the cover save you get from being 25% obscured is the same as though you were actually in the terrain.

p. 77 says that obscured by ruins grants a 4+.

page 77 does Not define cover saves. It gives some examples, which are correct if taken in the correct context.
By my reckoning in the cases above

a) 4+ save
B) no save
C) 5+ save


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(In the example on p77 the vehicle isthe arguably 'in' the ruin,)

p. 108 explicitely grants any model in ruins a 4+, whether being obscured or not.

p.77 defines cover saves for vehicles which are different from cover saves in general. Those differences are explained on the same page.

So, as I see it:

A) 4+ save
B) No save (Sigvatr, Second bullet point on p77)
C) 4+Save

C) is the point of contention, but please note p77:

1st bullet point:
"25% (...) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models"
I am quite sure i know what "intervening" means, and you cannot be "IN" models.

4th bullet point:
"exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound"
non-vehicle models taking a wound are exactly the same value: 4+

To get exactly the same value, when not in the ruin, would be a 5+, as per page 108. Intervening models also give 5+. Im not seeing the confusion. The example gives 4+, but doesn't give permission to apply a 4+ to all obstructions.

Page 77 wrote:it must take a cover save, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin and so on)

Again, I don't believe that the red refers to the cover save values but to the fact that, yes, vehicles get cover saves. That's all it means.

But it's going to take an FAQ spelling it all out before we come to any sort of agreement. Time to get off the merry-go-round.

 BlackTalos wrote:
So, as I see it:

B) No save (Sigvatr, Second bullet point on p77)

I am really conflicted on this one as we got two BRB rules directly conflicting each other. On the one hand, we got p.77 stating that vehicles do not get a cover save when in ruins, but on the other hand, we got p.108 that directly states that they do get a cover save (by referring to the obscured rule).

We have always played it like like you stated, as vehicles are different and why should ruins suddenly be an exception? On the other hand, it's another sad sign of really poorly written rules. GW. Quality.

Yes, but the Bullet point of p77 "overrides" p108: It pretty much says that you ignore an "IN" situation in favor of 25%

And p.108 would, at the same time, override said part of the rules as it specifically mentions that it does not have to be in it to gain a save.

It doesn't ignore the in. It adds an additional requirement of 25% coverage.