If a model is in area terrain and is fired upon through some ruins.

Area terrain: 5+
Ruins: 4+

If that model Goes to ground in the area terrain is its cover save 2+?

The rules on page 91 state. If you go to ground in area terrain your save is increased by 2. Need quick resolution here.

Yes. In that situation it would have a 2+ cover. It went to ground, and it was in area terrain, so it gets the +2 bonus even though it's not going to be using the actual save from the area terrain.

Since you always get to take your best available save, it would get 2+

The argument was that the area terrain was giving the 2+ and the ruins had the 4+ and you could not mix the saves. I countered with going to ground in area terrain just gives a blanket +2 to the models cover save. So RAW seems clear but RAI is unsure here.

Area terrain just improves your cover by +2 for going to ground in it, it does not require your cover save to come from the said area terrain you are going to ground in.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Area terrain just improves your cover by +2 for going to ground in it, it does not require your cover save to come from the said area terrain you are going to ground in.

That's my take on it, as well.

I completely forgot about the +2 cover save in area terrain! Thanks for that insight.

Sorry so the area terrain is a 5+ and going to ground improves this by 2 which means it is a 3+ correct?

And going to ground in ruins means your cover save is 2+?

bodazoka wrote:
Sorry so the area terrain is a 5+ and going to ground improves this by 2 which means it is a 3+ correct?

And going to ground in ruins means your cover save is 2+?

No for the situation stated.


Model is in area terrain. Enemy shoots at said model through some ruins. The model in the area terrain goes to ground increasing the ruin save of 4+ to a 2+. So even if the model is in area terrain. The ruin is the best cover save available. Going to ground in area terrain has a blanket effect of +2 to you cover. So the argument is going to ground in that situation would give a 2+ cover save.

bodazoka wrote:
Sorry so the area terrain is a 5+ and going to ground improves this by 2 which means it is a 3+ correct?

And going to ground in ruins means your cover save is 2+?

Not quite.

Area Terrain is 5+. Ruins are 4+. Going to Ground while in Area Terrain improves the cover save you are using by 2 rather than the usual 1. Thus a model that is in Area Terrain, and additionally concealed by Ruins, can get a 2+ cover save by claiming the bonus from Going to Ground in Area Terrain even though it isn't using the save from the Area Terrain.

Simply Going to Ground behind Ruins isn't enough to get the 2+. The model in question must also be in Area Terrain.

It's also quite reasonable. Shooting at someone that has found a defensive position in terrain through a house should be hard. Very hard.

No. This has been discussed before.

3+

You either get 3+ from the area terrain or 3+ from the intervening ruins blocking.

The +2 is applied to the bonus from area terrain. 5+ goes to 3+.

The +1 is applied to the bonus from the ruin. 4+ goes to 3+.

The two cover saves are the same.

Loopy - that isnt what the ruels actually state, however

Area terrain improves your Cover Save by 2 if you GtG. It does NOT state that it improves the cover save from the area terrain by 2, just ANY cover save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Loopy - that isnt what the ruels actually state, however

Area terrain improves your Cover Save by 2 if you GtG. It does NOT state that it improves the cover save from the area terrain by 2, just ANY cover save.

Yep. Like how stealth increases by 1 from anything, so does gtg, and if you're in terrain, gtg is even better. There is no rectriction saying that the bonus on your cover save has to be on the terrain's cover save. Quite the contrary actually, as it states you have to take the best available cover save.

So if you're on the first floor of a ruins, behind a wall, you'll end up with a 4+ cover save. Since you happen to be on the first floor of the ruins and in the area terrain you can potentially end up with a 2+ cover save if you go to ground and are obscured by the ruins as well, this make sense.

WOW. That many people ACTUALLY play it like that? LOL.

 Loopy wrote:
WOW. That many people ACTUALLY play it like that? LOL.

According to the rules, you mean? Yeah. Quite a few of us, I think.

 Purifier wrote:

 Loopy wrote:
WOW. That many people ACTUALLY play it like that? LOL.

According to the rules, you mean? Yeah. Quite a few of us, I think.

+1

RAI could go either way, and so long as both people play the same and agree before hand, no issue,

RAW is, you get +2 to your cover save for GTG, does not specifiy that this only applies to cover from the area terrain, just applies to cover.

raw is you use best save,
RAW is the +2 to cover from GtG in area terrain is gained from GtG in area terrain, not that it has to be applied to the area terrain save only

since you still have to be in area terrain, and still be 25% covered by the ruins, it makes sense to get the bonus.

In this case the wording is quite clear, in accordance to the BRB models that are currently in area terrain gain +2 to their cover save, and receive a 5+ cover save, but in the instance from the OP the models in question are also behind some ruins giving them a 4+ cover save. after all this the unit (assume an IG unit from the OP's rank track) has a 3+ cover, 2+ cover or 6+ armour save to choose from, but he would only get one of those, and I know which I would pick....

Adorable.

Well, I remember a conversation I had several months ago about this and there was a problem with treating the +2 as a blanket to all cover saves the model can claim. I think it had something to do with the +5 from area overriding all cover saves from obscuring objects. I'd have to find the language and my phone is awful. I may try to find it later if someone doesn't chime in.

Area terrain cover does not override any other form of cover. You are perfectly able to have multiple cover saves at one time, and are forced to use the best.

whether this is 'adorable' or not loopy, i don't appreciate the obvious condescension implied in your tone of type...

Aside from that, put this in a logical situation, as this is one of the few places real life and 40k can work together, say you are a soldier in battle, and you have a ditch (area terain) and part of that ditch is behind a small wall (ruins) where would you hide, in just the ditch, or in the ditch behind the wall? The rules provide just the solution for this situation and the rules work as they should.

 chaplaincliff wrote:
whether this is 'adorable' or not loopy, i don't appreciate the obvious condescension implied in your tone of type...

Aside from that, put this in a logical situation, as this is one of the few places real life and 40k can work together, say you are a soldier in battle, and you have a ditch (area terain) and part of that ditch is behind a small wall (ruins) where would you hide, in just the ditch, or in the ditch behind the wall? The rules provide just the solution for this situation and the rules work as they should.

I was referring to the hopefully good natured ribbing I was receiving

As far as your logical situation is concerned, I'd probably agree, but I don't think it works that way.

Again, I feel the need to say that I play Orks, so I'd like nothing more in the context of this topic than to be wrong.

well, I do apologize for being net-hurt loopy.

further let us reset, I truly can't see how you can say it doesn't work the way I say it does, and don't read into this as me saying "I am right, you are wrong, nyah, nyah, nyah" this is me being honestly confused, I can usually see the other sides argument at the very least, but the words are so straight forward to me as to be painfully obvious.

I don't have my book here so I can't give a good account. There's something in the area terrain rules that would make taking the entire section and applying the general statements there to all other saves a disaster area. Something about getting a 5+ whether you're obscured or not or something like that. I'll try to find the thread and quote the section later.

 Loopy wrote:
I don't have my book here so I can't give a good account. There's something in the area terrain rules that would make taking the entire section and applying the general statements there to all other saves a disaster area. Something about getting a 5+ whether you're obscured or not or something like that. I'll try to find the thread and quote the section later.

I see what your trying to argue. Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured. I agree with you models in area terrain do automatically get a 5+ cover save. However, in the situation provided above that model also gets a 4+ cover save from the ruins. You are required to take the best save available. Having the 5+ cover does not nullify the 4+ cover.

Okay, so here's the deal.

The first thing I want to address is what we were talking about. The passage on area terrain grants you a 5+ cover save regardless of being obscured or not and also says units that go to ground in Area Terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

Go to Ground says that units get +1 to their cover saving throws.

Shrouded and Stealth also refer to cover saves.

Not only does the specific language regarding granting the 5+ regardless of being obscured steer the Area Terrain section in the direction of being exclusive to the area terrain save specifically, but the language in the sentence that grants the +2 specifically says "save" rather than "saves" as the rules which are clearly meant to stack with other cover saves do. Those stacking save sources also tell you very specifically that they stack.

So, I do kind of understand why some folks would interpret it that way, but I was honestly surprised to hear people still played it that way because we'd settled it long ago and I heard the 11th company mention it as well and it seemed rather self-evident to them, so I just assumed folks had settled it.

I'm with you on this, Loopy.

Ruins are not a subcategory of area terrain in 6th ed, unlike 5th. Ruins are solid terrain offering 4+ cover. And IF they have a base, that base is also area terrain. Area terrain, in 6th, is a defined flat area of terrain (with raised elements) which grants non-vehicle models in the area a 5+ save. This 5+ save can be improved by 2 pips by Going to Ground in it, reaching a 3+ cover save. If a model is instead physically obscured by the raised elements of a Ruin, they can claim a 4+ cover save; but this is not coming from Area Terrain, and thus if you GtG with it, you still only get a 3+ cover save (all examples assuming no other stacking special rules like Stealth).

Arguments that the +2 can be applied to other cover saves than the 5+ from area ignore the context of that provision.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'm with you on this, Loopy.

Ruins are not a subcategory of area terrain in 6th ed, unlike 5th. Ruins are solid terrain offering 4+ cover. And IF they have a base, that base is also area terrain. Area terrain, in 6th, is a defined flat area of terrain (with raised elements) which grants non-vehicle models in the area a 5+ save. This 5+ save can be improved by 2 pips by Going to Ground in it, reaching a 3+ cover save. If a model is instead physically obscured by the raised elements of a Ruin, they can claim a 4+ cover save; but this is not coming from Area Terrain, and thus if you GtG with it, you still only get a 3+ cover save (all examples assuming no other stacking special rules like Stealth).

Arguments that the +2 can be applied to other cover saves than the 5+ from area ignore the context of that provision.

RAW is pretty clear that it just adds +2 to your cover save if you G2G in area terrain. Doesnt say it makes it a 3+. It states w.e your cover save is add +2 to that save.

This is one of the things I really hate about sixth edition. A 2+ cover save is just stupid in my opinion. I have seen some armies that are simply designed to GTG and snap fire. Like I said really stupid. Fortunately the new Tau have made these kinds of tactics completely redundant.

AFAIK, when the model is inside (or obscured by) ruins/battlefield debris, you receive a 4+ cover save. Go to Ground in such terrain always gives +2 to this save, instead of +1 in open terrain. So, it goes to 2+. I don't see why it'd become only 3+...

There are plenty of weapons out side of Tau that can negate cover, plus psychic powers. G2G will seriously hamper shooting/mobility on the next turn, so it's not like the unit is geting a 2+ for free.

Area terrain is 5+ even if its got ruins on it. You have to be actually obscured by ruins or wreckage to claim the 4+.

 Vector Strike wrote:
AFAIK, when the model is inside (or obscured by) ruins/battlefield debris, you receive a 4+ cover save. Go to Ground in such terrain always gives +2 to this save, instead of +1 in open terrain. So, it goes to 2+. I don't see why it'd become only 3+...

No. You only get the 4+ cover save by being obscured by the ruin. Not for just being in it. For being on the base you get the standard 5+ area terrain save. If you go to ground, you get to improve any cover save you're eligible for by +1, and you get to improve your area terrain cover save by +2. So with a ruin, either way you're getting a 3+; by improving the 4+ save from the walls by +1, or by improving the 5+ save from the base by +2.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
AFAIK, when the model is inside (or obscured by) ruins/battlefield debris, you receive a 4+ cover save. Go to Ground in such terrain always gives +2 to this save, instead of +1 in open terrain. So, it goes to 2+. I don't see why it'd become only 3+...

No. You only get the 4+ cover save by being obscured by the ruin. Not for just being in it. For being on the base you get the standard 5+ area terrain save. If you go to ground, you get to improve any cover save you're eligible for by +1, and you get to improve your area terrain cover save by +2. So with a ruin, either way you're getting a 3+; by improving the 4+ save from the walls by +1, or by improving the 5+ save from the base by +2.

Failing to see the rules that state this beyond your interpretation? If you go to ground in area terrain you receive +2 to your cover save. There is no requirement for that cover save to be from the area terrain. It just merely gives +2 to your cover save if you go to ground in area terrain. So if in area terrain and also obscured by a ruin or an aegis etc... then you would receive a +2 bonus to your cover save. Whatever that save may be.

Mann - it does not say "+2 to your cover save provided by the area terrain", that has been added in.

But if you take that out of context, then you also must take the 5+ cover save regardless of being obscured out of context and that's madness.

The context is you get +2 to your save. It does not specify what particular cover save; it is entirely out of the scope of the sentence, and does not consider this at all.

Cover save. Not cover saves.

Yes, and in the context of what it is considering there is only one save. It is entirely silent on what happens when you have multiple cover saves

Hey, we're either treating this book like a computer program or we're not. If you want to say the +2 to your cover save applies to all cover saves, you have to also insist that the +5 cover save for being in area terrain overrides any obscuring terrain.

That's dumb.

It's far more reasonable to assume narrow context to the Area Terrain section of the rules.

So what if you have models in one of those craters you can buy, they grant a 5+ save for being in them and count as area terrain (pg 105), and an enemy unit shoot at you but drawn LOS through an intervening building that has been established as ruins obscuring your models/model by 25%. We'll just assume the entire unit is obscured or the enemy is only able to draw LOS to a limited number of models in the unit. You would have to elect to take the best save, which in this case would be a 4+ from the ruins. Now if you were to go to ground (because your unit/models are in area terrain) would that not make your save a 2+?

Obviously this is a specific scenario which would require to be both obscured by another piece of terrain (ruins) whilst being in area terrain. The area terrain would improve your cover save once you go to ground, this does seem to me to be a sound game mechanic. It will be limiting your mobility and decreasing your units ability to put out effective fire. At that much of a penalty why wouldn't you want a pay off for it? Without some serious fire power an entrenched unit should not become so easily dislodge from their position.

I have to agree with Loopy et al. Ultimately, a 2+ could be arrived at if the OP had GtG in the ruins (4+) AND the ruins had a base (area terrain). Otherwise, the 2+ improvement in saving throw would only bring the cover save to a 3+ in either case.

 Loopy wrote:
Hey, we're either treating this book like a computer program or we're not. If you want to say the +2 to your cover save applies to all cover saves, you have to also insist that the +5 cover save for being in area terrain overrides any obscuring terrain.

That's dumb.

It's far more reasonable to assume narrow context to the Area Terrain section of the rules.

Or area terrain has no need for a model to be 25% obscured to receive a cover save from it. Your adding words and/or rules that do not currently exist. RAW the situation listed above grants you a 2+ cover save. It is also my belief RAI is also that you get a 2+ cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Mann - it does not say "+2 to your cover save provided by the area terrain", that has been added in.

QFT!

Are you 25% obscured by a ruin? Yes? 4+ save
Are you in Area terrian? Yes? 4+ is still best save.
Did you gtg in Area terrian? Yes 2+ to the cover save.


Models obscured by the ruins and in area terrian and gtg would get a 2+.
Models that are not obscured by ruins and gtg in area terrian get a 3+.
Models obscured by ruins but not in area that gtg get a 3+
Models not obscured by ruins and not in area that gtg get a 6+

Thats how I read the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The context is you get +2 to your save. It does not specify what particular cover save; it is entirely out of the scope of the sentence, and does not consider this at all.

Agreed.

The language used is a lot like Shrouded, which is also a flat +2 to the cover save. I can't see arguing that Shrouded only ever provides a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether you're standing in area terrain, behind ruins, or whatever.

Being in Area Terrain has 3 clear and distinct effects.

1) 5+ cover

2) Difficult Terrain

3) If a model goes to ground it gains +2 to its cover saves. The wording means it will apply to all cover saves from any source.

Shrouding says cover saves. Area terrain says cover save.

If you want to apply a +2 go to ground for all cover saves while in area terrain, you also have to assume that the 5+ cover save from area terrain overrides any obscured cover save you're getting due to context and the use of the singular as plural.

There's no way around it.

 Loopy wrote:
Hey, we're either treating this book like a computer program or we're not. If you want to say the +2 to your cover save applies to all cover saves, you have to also insist that the +5 cover save for being in area terrain overrides any obscuring terrain.

That's dumb.

Yes, which is why I have never argued that. You have also not presented any evidence as to why it would "override" your other cover saves, especially given there is no evidence that this is the case in the rules for Area Terain OR elsewhere

here is my interpretation. please correct me if i'm missing the mark.

In ruins, not 25% obscured: 0+
In ruins, 25% obscured: 4+
In area terrain, not 25% obscured: 5+
In area terrain, 25% obscured: 5+
In area terrain containing ruins, not 25% obscured by ruin: 5+
In area terrain containing ruins, 25% obscured by ruin: 4+
In ruins, not 25% obscured, GTG: 0+
In ruins, 25% obscured, GTG: 3+
In area terrain, not 25% obscured, GTG: 3+
In area terrain, 25% obscured, GTG: 3+
In area terrain containing ruins, not 25% obscured by ruin, GTG: 3+
In area terrain containing ruins, 25% obscured by ruin, GTG: 2+

Do these combinations all make sense?

"Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether they are 25% obscured."

 Loopy wrote:
"Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether they are 25% obscured."

Correct.

Nothing about that says that's the only cover save available. At all.

In ruins not 25% obscured GTG; 6+

Aren't ruins also area terrain? That's how I've always seen them played.

 Fafnir13 wrote:
Aren't ruins also area terrain? That's how I've always seen them played.

If the ruins have a base and a defined area that each player agreed upon they are area terrain.

A collection of several loose walls without a defined area base count as LOS blocking ruin walls.

I guess you could also have ruined walls with a defined area base still not count as area terrain if both players agreed.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:
"Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether they are 25% obscured."

Correct.

Nothing about that says that's the only cover save available. At all.

Oh, I agree, until you start assuming "cover save" means ANY or ALL cover saves. Only the overall +1 gained from going to ground, Stealth, and Shrouded do that. +2 for being in area terrain is contextualized in the Area Terrain section by the use of the singular, just like the passage I quoted only applies to being in area terrain.

 Loopy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:
"Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether they are 25% obscured."

Correct.

Nothing about that says that's the only cover save available. At all.

Oh, I agree, until you start assuming "cover save" means ANY or ALL cover saves. Only the overall +1 gained from going to ground, Stealth, and Shrouded do that. +2 for being in area terrain is contextualized in the Area Terrain section by the use of the singular, just like the passage I quoted only applies to being in area terrain.

Um. No.
Models in area terrain get a 5+ save.
Completely separate from that, models that GTG in area terrain get +2 to their cover save instead of +1.

If you have multiple sources of cover saves the area terrain rule doesn't change other sources. And since you can only take one save the GTG rule referring to a single save is correct.

 Loopy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:
"Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether they are 25% obscured."

Correct.

Nothing about that says that's the only cover save available. At all.

Oh, I agree, until you start assuming "cover save" means ANY or ALL cover saves. Only the overall +1 gained from going to ground, Stealth, and Shrouded do that. +2 for being in area terrain is contextualized in the Area Terrain section by the use of the singular, just like the passage I quoted only applies to being in area terrain.

Uh ih reading shrouded and stealth they also make reference to cover saves and cover save. Does this mean I get multiple saves and lne save at the same time? Alright enough silliness.

Loopy your argument is based purely on your interpretation of the rules and has no backing in the rules. How many armor, invul, or cover saves can a model make per wound? One! The wording in the sentence works with or without an 's'.

The present or not of s is meaningless in this context as we have no way of telling which save it refers to. Thus it will improve any cover save the model gets.

If you don't have a cover save, IE in open ground, not in area terrain, not 25% obscured, GTG, stealth, and shroud do nothing correct? you have to be at least behind something that confers a 6+ for those to take effect.

 deviantduck wrote:
If you don't have a cover save, IE in open ground, not in area terrain, not 25% obscured, GTG, stealth, and shroud do nothing correct? you have to be at least behind something that confers a 6+ for those to take effect.

Wrong. The special rule has specific wording that allows it even in the open.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Mann - it does not say "+2 to your cover save provided by the area terrain", that has been added in.

Nor does it say “+2 to whatever cover save you’re using”; that’s also been added in, by inference. The rules for Area Terrain specify that they provide a 5+ cover save. They also specify that when you GtG in area, you get +2 to your cover save.

Area terrain is always difficult terrain. Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured. Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

That whole paragraph is bolded to emphasize the most important qualities of area terrain. Read in context, that rule is talking about the cover save conferred by the area terrain. You have to make an inference, a leap of logic, to read the +2 as being applicable to ANY cover save, including one you’re gaining from some other source. And I think that’s a mistaken inference. You’re saying that the Area Terrain rules’ reference to “the model’s cover save” actually means “whatever cover saves the model currently qualifies for/chooses to take”, but I believe that’s an error. I think the rules are actually written to prevent 2+ cover saves from being readily available unless you’ve got some special rule (such as Night Fighting, Stealth, or a Defensive Line) in play.

Permissive rule set and all, the only permission to gain the +2 is under the rules for area terrain. Which means you only gain the benefit while using the area terrains cover save. Listing examples from stealth and shrouded are not relevant as they are USRs and specifically allow for the use of the bonus to be applied not only to themselves but all cover saves. Area terrain does not, its bonus is listed in a single paragraph with no permission for use out side of the area terrains cover save.

 Bausk wrote:
Permissive rule set and all, the only permission to gain the +2 is under the rules for area terrain. Which means you only gain the benefit while using the area terrains cover save. Listing examples from stealth and shrouded are not relevant as they are USRs and specifically allow for the use of the bonus to be applied not only to themselves but all cover saves. Area terrain does not, its bonus is listed in a single paragraph with no permission for use out side of the area terrains cover save.

Wrong, you have permission to gain the +2 if you go to ground in area terrain. You are not told which cover save the +2 applies to, therefore it is not restricted further and can be applied to any cover save the model is eligible for.

Within the context of the three sentence paragraph where the rule appears, and the sentence it appears next to, I think there's good reason to believe the +2 is only meant to apply to the Area Terrain save.

At best it's ambiguous, and as we all know, the best approach in an ambiguous situation is to take the less powerful interpretation.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Permissive rule set and all, the only permission to gain the +2 is under the rules for area terrain. Which means you only gain the benefit while using the area terrains cover save. Listing examples from stealth and shrouded are not relevant as they are USRs and specifically allow for the use of the bonus to be applied not only to themselves but all cover saves. Area terrain does not, its bonus is listed in a single paragraph with no permission for use out side of the area terrains cover save.

Wrong, you have permission to gain the +2 if you go to ground in area terrain. You are not told which cover save the +2 applies to, therefore it is not restricted further and can be applied to any cover save the model is eligible for.

Ah yes, but if you claim cover from the ruin, you are no longer in area terrain's cover but in cover behind the ruin. Which makes you incapable of receiving the benefit of being in area terrain's cover. You have permission to use the best cover save available, not mix cover save's rules.

No, you are still in the Area terrain. That never changes.

The +2 bonus for going to ground is a separate effect from the 5+ cover the Area Terrain gives and as such can be claimed independently.

Area terrain confers a 5+ cover save, and a +2 to your cover save (the 5+) if you go to ground while you're in it.

There is no explicit rule stating that this bonus applies to any other cover save you might happen to qualify for at the time. I think attempting to claim the +2 on some other cover save is claiming an inappropriate advantage.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, you are still in the Area terrain. That never changes.

The +2 bonus for going to ground is a separate effect from the 5+ cover the Area Terrain gives and as such can be claimed independently.

You are only permitted to claim one cover save, regardless of how many cover saves you are eligible to use. When you claim that cover save you use it's rules and only its rules. If you are not claiming cover from area terrain then you do not use its rules. The bonus for going to ground is listed under Area terrains rule and is only applied to its cover save; It is not a separate rule to area terrain, its rules or its cover save.

By your standing If I had a model that was eligible to receive a cover save from a 5+ fuel reserve12" away and the 4+ wall it was standing behind and I made my cover save for the 4+ wall I would also have to roll for the fuel reserve explosion on the model that made its save.

the +2 is not a rule of the Area Terrain cover save, its a rule of Area Terrain. Nothing requires the save to be the Area Terrain save for the +2 to apply, only that you go to ground in area terrain.

 Grey Templar wrote:
the +2 is not a rule of the Area Terrain cover save, its a rule of Area Terrain. Nothing requires the save to be the Area Terrain save for the +2 to apply, only that you go to ground in area terrain.

Again, would you say that in my example on the previous post that I would have to roll for the Fuel Reserve explosion on the model that made its cover save for a wall?

Area terrain is always difficult terrain. Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured. Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

How do you know WHICH cover save this is talking about? How can you determine whether they mean the cover save from area terrain, or whichever cover save the model is using?

How do you know?

You have to make an inference, either way. You have to draw upon the available data and bridge the gap, because the rule doesn't explicitly say "+2 to your area terrain cover save" OR "+2 to any cover save the model can claim".

IMO the placement of the rule in context is indicative that the +2 is only meant to apply to the area terrain cover save.

Looking at the cover save rules in general, one also notes that getting a 2+ cover save, under my interpretation (a very powerful thing, and arguably broken with combined with Daemon of Tzeentch) is something you can only do when a special rule (Shrouded, Stealth, Camo Cloaks, Defensive Line) of some kind is involved. This strikes me as good, functional design. 3+ cover isn't that hard to get with GtG. But 2+ requires a little something more to access. It's not as easy as just being in area + behind a wall or hill.

Further, given than an inference must be made either way, I think the best practice of claiming the less-powerful interpretation is the obvious choice.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Area terrain is always difficult terrain. Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured. Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

How do you know WHICH cover save this is talking about? How can you determine whether they mean the cover save from area terrain, or whichever cover save the model is using?

How do you know?

You have to make an inference, either way. You have to draw upon the available data and bridge the gap, because the rule doesn't explicitly say "+2 to your area terrain cover save" OR "+2 to any cover save the model can claim".

IMO the placement of the rule in context is indicative that the +2 is only meant to apply to the area terrain cover save.

Looking at the cover save rules in general, one also notes that getting a 2+ cover save, under my interpretation (a very powerful thing, and arguably broken with combined with Daemon of Tzeentch) is something you can only do when a special rule (Shrouded, Stealth, Camo Cloaks, Defensive Line) of some kind is involved. This strikes me as good, functional design. 3+ cover isn't that hard to get with GtG. But 2+ requires a little something more to access. It's not as easy as just being in area + behind a wall or hill.

Further, given than an inference must be made either way, I think the best practice of claiming the less-powerful interpretation is the obvious choice.

Agreed but no inference is needed as you are only permitted to use one cover save, if you combined them or their rules in any way you are not using one cover save but more than one.

And that just isn't so. You can't assume it applies to any and all cover saves because the rules don't tell you that you can do that. Under Shrouding and Stealth, they certainly do tell you to apply the bonuses to all cove saves. Going to ground in area terrain does not.

Clearly the most reasonable conclusion is to leave the +2 in context.

But.... ruins with a defined base area ARE area terrain. So if you're obscured by 25% behind an area terrain ruin, it is 4+ and +2 gtg.

That's why they differentiate between area terrain, ruins, and area terrain ruins.

Deviantduck, you want to review the first two paragraphs on Ruins, on page 98, again, as well as the section on Area terrain on page 91. The rules for Ruins in 6th are clear that they are a specific type of terrain which is very different from area terrain, but that if they have a base, you treat the base (only) as being area terrain.

This is a big change from 5th, where ruins were just a subcategory/type OF area terrain.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Deviantduck, you want to review the first two paragraphs on Ruins, on page 98, again, as well as the section on Area terrain on page 91. The rules for Ruins in 6th are clear that they are a specific type of terrain which is very different from area terrain, but that if they have a base, you treat the base (only) as being area terrain.

This is a big change from 5th, where ruins were just a subcategory/type OF area terrain.

With the wording it has now I am just gonna have to disagree with you until an faq clarifies it further. As it stands the most logical conclusion with the current wording is a 2+ cover save. There is room to interpret it differently but reading it as it I cant argue someone off of a 2+ cover save during a game.

Would you disallow someone to claim a 2+ cover save in that situation?

 Tomb King wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Deviantduck, you want to review the first two paragraphs on Ruins, on page 98, again, as well as the section on Area terrain on page 91. The rules for Ruins in 6th are clear that they are a specific type of terrain which is very different from area terrain, but that if they have a base, you treat the base (only) as being area terrain.

This is a big change from 5th, where ruins were just a subcategory/type OF area terrain.

With the wording it has now I am just gonna have to disagree with you until an faq clarifies it further. As it stands the most logical conclusion with the current wording is a 2+ cover save. There is room to interpret it differently but reading it as it I cant argue someone off of a 2+ cover save during a game.

Would you disallow someone to claim a 2+ cover save in that situation?

Read my example a few posts ago with the 4+ wall and the 5+ Fuel Reserve, would you claim the model that makes it cover save for the wall also has to roll for the fuel reserve explosion?

 Bausk wrote:

When you claim that cover save you use it's rules and only its rules. If you are not claiming cover from area terrain then you do not use its rules. The bonus for going to ground is listed under Area terrains rule and is only applied to its cover save; It is not a separate rule to area terrain, its rules or its cover save.

The part of the rules you inferred and/or made up ^^^^.

 Tomb King wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

When you claim that cover save you use it's rules and only its rules. If you are not claiming cover from area terrain then you do not use its rules. The bonus for going to ground is listed under Area terrains rule and is only applied to its cover save; It is not a separate rule to area terrain, its rules or its cover save.

The part of the rules you inferred and/or made up ^^^^.

Page 18
Cover Saves "Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a Cover Save"
Determining Cover Saves "Wounds allocated to that model receive a Cover Save."

Page 19
Models with more than one save "A model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."

Yeah I totally made those rules up. So you're saying that you would force the model that made its cover Save on the 4+ Wall would still have to roll for the explosion via the 5+ Fuel Reserve?

 Bausk wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

When you claim that cover save you use it's rules and only its rules. If you are not claiming cover from area terrain then you do not use its rules. The bonus for going to ground is listed under Area terrains rule and is only applied to its cover save; It is not a separate rule to area terrain, its rules or its cover save.

The part of the rules you inferred and/or made up ^^^^.

Page 18
Cover Saves "Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a Cover Save"
Determining Cover Saves "Wounds allocated to that model receive a Cover Save."

Page 19
Models with more than one save "A model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."

Yeah I totally made those rules up. So you're saying that you would force the model that made its cover Save on the 4+ Wall would still have to roll for the explosion via the 5+ Fuel Reserve?

No i said completely ignore my post and post your silly example again.

 Tomb King wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

When you claim that cover save you use it's rules and only its rules. If you are not claiming cover from area terrain then you do not use its rules. The bonus for going to ground is listed under Area terrains rule and is only applied to its cover save; It is not a separate rule to area terrain, its rules or its cover save.

The part of the rules you inferred and/or made up ^^^^.

Page 18
Cover Saves "Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a Cover Save"
Determining Cover Saves "Wounds allocated to that model receive a Cover Save."

Page 19
Models with more than one save "A model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."

Yeah I totally made those rules up. So you're saying that you would force the model that made its cover Save on the 4+ Wall would still have to roll for the explosion via the 5+ Fuel Reserve?

No i said completely ignore my post and post your silly example again.

I did no such thing. I posted the relevant rules and page numbers from which we only use one cover save and its rules, then re-asked the question that everyone seems to not want to answer as it is exactly the same as claiming the bonus +2 from area terrain on a different cover save. So by your stand point the model that made the cover save would in fact have to roll for the fuel reserve explosion as well because the model is able to claim either cover save.

Let's further this example and say that the model is on the ground level of a ruin, behind a wall and the fuel reserve. Lets use the 'all cover applies' method and see if it works for you. So the model has the option between a 5+ Fuel reserve cover save, a 5+ area terrain cover save and a 4+ wall cover save. So the model takes the best of those three and opts for the 4+ wall cover save. Then to improve the chances goes to ground, by this method receiving a 2+ bonus for being in area terrain. So the model makes the 2+ cover save with ease but then must, as per the rules of the fuel reserve, roll another D6 to see if they are splashed with promethium.

So basically the model, ducks behind a wall in a ruin. Some how gets a better cover save for all the scattered debris that is basically ruined wall. And in this very well concealed and protected area manages to get hit though the wall and alleged debris by the promethium. Or in other words, he increased his chances of being doused in promethium by ducking behind a wall in some ruins....makes complete sense.

But if we actually follow the rules, like those ones I must have made up and somehow managed to quote page numbers and cite rules for, then we only use ONE cover save and its rules. Not cherry pick rules from one save to another.

 Bausk wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

When you claim that cover save you use it's rules and only its rules. If you are not claiming cover from area terrain then you do not use its rules. The bonus for going to ground is listed under Area terrains rule and is only applied to its cover save; It is not a separate rule to area terrain, its rules or its cover save.

The part of the rules you inferred and/or made up ^^^^.

Page 18
Cover Saves "Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a Cover Save"
Determining Cover Saves "Wounds allocated to that model receive a Cover Save."

Page 19
Models with more than one save "A model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."

Yeah I totally made those rules up. So you're saying that you would force the model that made its cover Save on the 4+ Wall would still have to roll for the explosion via the 5+ Fuel Reserve?

No i said completely ignore my post and post your silly example again.

I did no such thing. I posted the relevant rules and page numbers from which we only use one cover save and its rules, then re-asked the question that everyone seems to not want to answer as it is exactly the same as claiming the bonus +2 from area terrain on a different cover save. So by your stand point the model that made the cover save would in fact have to roll for the fuel reserve explosion as well because the model is able to claim either cover save.

Let's further this example and say that the model is on the ground level of a ruin, behind a wall and the fuel reserve. Lets use the 'all cover applies' method and see if it works for you. So the model has the option between a 5+ Fuel reserve cover save, a 5+ area terrain cover save and a 4+ wall cover save. So the model takes the best of those three and opts for the 4+ wall cover save. Then to improve the chances goes to ground, by this method receiving a 2+ bonus for being in area terrain. So the model makes the 2+ cover save with ease but then must, as per the rules of the fuel reserve, roll another D6 to see if they are splashed with promethium.

So basically the model, ducks behind a wall in a ruin. Some how gets a better cover save for all the scattered debris that is basically ruined wall. And in this very well concealed and protected area manages to get hit though the wall and alleged debris by the promethium. Or in other words, he increased his chances of being doused in promethium by ducking behind a wall in some ruins....makes complete sense.

But if we actually follow the rules, like those ones I must have made up and somehow managed to quote page numbers and cite rules for, then we only use ONE cover save and its rules. Not cherry pick rules from one save to another.

Did anyone say you get more then one save??? I think i actually posted i dunno 15 to 20 post ago that you only get one save. So kind of confused what your trying to argue here. You quoted that you are entitled to a cover save. Roger got it. No one is refuting that. Then it appears your arguing some special rules for a fuel reserve? And then your arguing fluff?

As stated before I would settle for we just disagree. To answer your question. I would allow someone to make a 2+ cover save. As for fuel reserve, I have never seen one in any of the hundreds of 40k games I have played. So if someone tells me on a 2+ a rabbit jumps out of it then I would ask to see the rule and probably allow it for the lolz.

Now the question was directed at Mann. Would you allow the 2+ cover save as I do not see enough to refute it?

No, I would not. It would have to come down to a judge call at an event, because the wording seems reasonably clear to me, and the intent quite clear. The rules are designed to prevent 2+ cover saves in the absence of some special rule or a Defensive Line.

Bausk also has a valid point about mixing the rules for different kinds of cover.

 Tomb King wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

When you claim that cover save you use it's rules and only its rules. If you are not claiming cover from area terrain then you do not use its rules. The bonus for going to ground is listed under Area terrains rule and is only applied to its cover save; It is not a separate rule to area terrain, its rules or its cover save.

The part of the rules you inferred and/or made up ^^^^.

Page 18
Cover Saves "Where this is the case, the model will be entitled to a Cover Save"
Determining Cover Saves "Wounds allocated to that model receive a Cover Save."

Page 19
Models with more than one save "A model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."

Yeah I totally made those rules up. So you're saying that you would force the model that made its cover Save on the 4+ Wall would still have to roll for the explosion via the 5+ Fuel Reserve?

No i said completely ignore my post and post your silly example again.

I did no such thing. I posted the relevant rules and page numbers from which we only use one cover save and its rules, then re-asked the question that everyone seems to not want to answer as it is exactly the same as claiming the bonus +2 from area terrain on a different cover save. So by your stand point the model that made the cover save would in fact have to roll for the fuel reserve explosion as well because the model is able to claim either cover save.

Let's further this example and say that the model is on the ground level of a ruin, behind a wall and the fuel reserve. Lets use the 'all cover applies' method and see if it works for you. So the model has the option between a 5+ Fuel reserve cover save, a 5+ area terrain cover save and a 4+ wall cover save. So the model takes the best of those three and opts for the 4+ wall cover save. Then to improve the chances goes to ground, by this method receiving a 2+ bonus for being in area terrain. So the model makes the 2+ cover save with ease but then must, as per the rules of the fuel reserve, roll another D6 to see if they are splashed with promethium.

So basically the model, ducks behind a wall in a ruin. Some how gets a better cover save for all the scattered debris that is basically ruined wall. And in this very well concealed and protected area manages to get hit though the wall and alleged debris by the promethium. Or in other words, he increased his chances of being doused in promethium by ducking behind a wall in some ruins....makes complete sense.

But if we actually follow the rules, like those ones I must have made up and somehow managed to quote page numbers and cite rules for, then we only use ONE cover save and its rules. Not cherry pick rules from one save to another.

Did anyone say you get more then one save??? I think i actually posted i dunno 15 to 20 post ago that you only get one save. So kind of confused what your trying to argue here. You quoted that you are entitled to a cover save. Roger got it. No one is refuting that. Then it appears your arguing some special rules for a fuel reserve? And then your arguing fluff?

As stated before I would settle for we just disagree. To answer your question. I would allow someone to make a 2+ cover save. As for fuel reserve, I have never seen one in any of the hundreds of 40k games I have played. So if someone tells me on a 2+ a rabbit jumps out of it then I would ask to see the rule and probably allow it for the lolz.

Now the question was directed at Mann. Would you allow the 2+ cover save as I do not see enough to refute it?

The point being is you are mixing the rules of one save with another. What rules do you use for your models armour save? The save and all associated rules for JUST the armour save you are using. What rules do you use for your invulnerable save? The save and all associated rules for the invulnerable save you are using. What rules don't you use? Any rule that has nothing to do with the save you are using. The same applies to cover saves. For each cover save you are using you only apply the rules for that cover save, not any other save you are capable of taking.

I'm debating effects and rules, perhaps you should read up on what the fuel reserve cover save rules are then you might see my point. You know, rather than brushing rules debates of as 'fluff arguments' and disagreeing without a citation or actual counterpoint. Page 105 of the BRB, that's where the rules for fuel reserve are, seeing as you've not used the rules in 'hundreds' of 6th ed games.

Done discussing it as I have been flagged as breaking site rules.

As for page 105 battlefield debris. I only play in leagues or tournaments usually and play games to prepare for those games. Not to many tournaments that I have seen or participated in support the random terrain beyond the cover saves and/or mysterious terrain/objectives.

For a final note:

Pg 91: Area terrain

No part of that states if models go to ground in area terrain they get 3+ cover save rather then 5+. No part of that says it doesnt stack with other cover saves. It merely states +2 to you cover save. So unless there are rules written in the text that say they cant help another save or something that implies blatantly that it doesn't stack with any other saves then I am afraid you are playing it wrong. Hence why we can agree to disagree because you are not playing the rules that might be poorly written or might be written correctly. Nothing stops this from happening. If you A happens you get +1 cover. If A happens while in B you get +2 cover. There is no other requirement besides being in B to benefit from the +2.

 Tomb King wrote:
Done discussing it as I have been flagged as breaking site rules.

As for page 105 battlefield debris. I only play in leagues or tournaments usually and play games to prepare for those games. Not to many tournaments that I have seen or participated in support the random terrain beyond the cover saves and/or mysterious terrain/objectives.

For a final note:

Pg 91: Area terrain

Spoiler:

is always difficult terrain. Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured. Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

No part of that states if models go to ground in area terrain they get 3+ cover save rather then 5+. No part of that says it doesnt stack with other cover saves. It merely states +2 to you cover save. So unless there are rules written in the text that say they cant help another save or something that implies blatantly that it doesn't stack with any other saves then I am afraid you are playing it wrong. Hence why we can agree to disagree because you are not playing the rules that might be poorly written or might be written correctly. Nothing stops this from happening. If you A happens you get +1 cover. If A happens while in B you get +2 cover. There is no other requirement besides being in B to benefit from the +2.

The 'Random' terrain you refer to is pretty much an terrain piece that looks like; Fuel drums, Jerrycans and Xeno equivalents. They are also included in the advanced Cover/Terrain section along with such things as ruins, barricades, forests etc. Reading these terrain/cover types you come to realize that they have rather specific rules that really don't play well with other terrain/cover types. But if your local gaming area only supports basic cover rules and ruins then I understand why you are not acquainted with the advanced terrain rules and how they work, to which I only suggest you read up on them if you intend to discuss them.

As to your final point, that is the rule for the Area Terrain cover save alright. It is not the rules for a Wall though. If you claim a save from a different cover save, you use its rules. And if its rules state you receive a +2 then by all means take it. But if they don't, then you can't turn around and claim the +2 from a different saves rules. As I said in my previous post, you don't claim rules from an invulnerable save on an armour save. You only use the rules that apply to the save you are using, nothing more.

 Bausk wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Done discussing it as I have been flagged as breaking site rules.

As for page 105 battlefield debris. I only play in leagues or tournaments usually and play games to prepare for those games. Not to many tournaments that I have seen or participated in support the random terrain beyond the cover saves and/or mysterious terrain/objectives.

For a final note:

Pg 91: Area terrain

Spoiler:

is always difficult terrain. Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured. Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

No part of that states if models go to ground in area terrain they get 3+ cover save rather then 5+. No part of that says it doesnt stack with other cover saves. It merely states +2 to you cover save. So unless there are rules written in the text that say they cant help another save or something that implies blatantly that it doesn't stack with any other saves then I am afraid you are playing it wrong. Hence why we can agree to disagree because you are not playing the rules that might be poorly written or might be written correctly. Nothing stops this from happening. If you A happens you get +1 cover. If A happens while in B you get +2 cover. There is no other requirement besides being in B to benefit from the +2.

The 'Random' terrain you refer to is pretty much an terrain piece that looks like; Fuel drums, Jerrycans and Xeno equivalents. They are also included in the advanced Cover/Terrain section along with such things as ruins, barricades, forests etc. Reading these terrain/cover types you come to realize that they have rather specific rules that really don't play well with other terrain/cover types. But if your local gaming area only supports basic cover rules and ruins then I understand why you are not acquainted with the advanced terrain rules and how they work, to which I only suggest you read up on them if you intend to discuss them.

As to your final point, that is the rule for the Area Terrain cover save alright. It is not the rules for a Wall though. If you claim a save from a different cover save, you use its rules. And if its rules state you receive a +2 then by all means take it. But if they don't, then you can't turn around and claim the +2 from a different saves rules. As I said in my previous post, you don't claim rules from an invulnerable save on an armour save. You only use the rules that apply to the save you are using, nothing more.

Ill ignore yet another jab and keep with the debate. Who knows maybe ill see fuel reserves at the nova invitational. No you don't claim rules for invulnerable saves and apply them to armor saves.

Example: Grimoire of True Names gives a boost of +2 to an invul save. There can be no argument for that to be for armor save. Invul save rules can affect invuls. Armor save rules can affect armor saves. Cover save rules can affect cover saves.

What rule states that if you G2G in area terrain it cant affect your cover save? There isn't a rule that says it cant? The rule actually says and I quote: "Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." With the only qualifying factor being that your in area terrain.

 Tomb King wrote:


Ill ignore yet another jab and keep with the debate. Who knows maybe ill see fuel reserves at the nova invitational. No you don't claim rules for invulnerable saves and apply them to armor saves.

Example: Grimoire of True Names gives a boost of +2 to an invul save. There can be no argument for that to be for armor save. Invul save rules can affect invuls. Armor save rules can affect armor saves. Cover save rules can affect cover saves.

What rule states that if you G2G in area terrain it cant affect your cover save? There isn't a rule that says it cant? The rule actually says and I quote: "Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." With the only qualifying factor being that your in area terrain.

For starters, its a permissive rule set, so I don't need to cite a rule for disallowing an assumption. What I have done however is cited rules that permit you to use one save and that saves rules and numerous examples of why your interpretation simply does not work with in the rule set. Secondly, if you wish to infer anything I've typed out just remember that text does not impart the same context as spoken language. And thirdly, hyperbole is a common tool in text to impart a sense of context; My reference to claiming an armour save is invulnerable is just that and not a literal statement.

Back on the subject at hand however.

Grimoire of True Names is a special rule that applies to the invulnerable save. Much like Stealth, Shrouded and Camo Cloaks apply to cover saves.

Area terrain is a type of terrain with its own rules. Much like a Storm Shield is an Invulnerable save with its own rules.

Can you see the difference now? Each save, regardless of type, is to be taken as it is and not mixed with others of any type (including its own).

If you use a save, any save it does not matter what type, you only use its rules. If you have special rules that can affect those base save rules, then they are applied. As the +2 is only listed in area terrain, the qualification for its use is by using the area terrain cover save and its rules. If you had the Shrouded USR and claimed the Wall as your cover save, then yes 2+ cover save away.

Distinctions between rules and special rules are there for a reason.

I was looking at the wording for Defensive Lines on page 105, and noticed it uses the same kind of phrasing that Area does. That if a model is in cover behind it, and goes to ground, it gets +2 to its cover save.

Say you had a unit of cultists and a unit of Oblits, sheltering in a crater behind an Aegis, and being fired at by some Eldar, who are trying to wipe the Cultists off an objective. The Cultists Go to Ground, getting 2+ cover from a unit of Scatter Laser War Walkers, and sustain only a few casualties. Then Greg Sparks, I mean, The Eldar Player ( ), fires a unit of Shadow Weavers at the Cultists, landing a couple of hits in amongst the Oblits, which also clip some cultists, though the center of the blast is in the Oblit squad, so they'll give cover to the Cultists.

Now, in that situation, do the Cultists get 4+ cover (intervening unit + GtG)?

Or do they get 3+ cover (intervening unit +2 for GtG behind an Aegis)?

For my money, they only get 4+ cover. The Aegis isn't actually the cover save being used against this attack, so the "+2 to its cover save" it confers does not apply.

Same with Area and its +2 for GtG in it. If the Area Terrain save isn't the one being used, the +2 for GtG in Area won't apply to some other cover save.

They all clearly state what benefit they give in the open.
GTG gives 6+.
Stealth gives 6+.
Shrouded gives 5+.
If you manage to combine them on a single unit that would give it a 3+ coversave in the open.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I was looking at the wording for Defensive Lines on page 105, and noticed it uses the same kind of phrasing that Area does. That if a model is in cover behind it, and goes to ground, it gets +2 to its cover save.

Say you had a unit of cultists and a unit of Oblits, sheltering in a crater behind an Aegis, and being fired at by some Eldar, who are trying to wipe the Cultists off an objective. The Cultists Go to Ground, getting 2+ cover from a unit of Scatter Laser War Walkers, and sustain only a few casualties. Then Greg Sparks, I mean, The Eldar Player ( ), fires a unit of Shadow Weavers at the Cultists, landing a couple of hits in amongst the Oblits, which also clip some cultists, though the center of the blast is in the Oblit squad, so they'll give cover to the Cultists.

Now, in that situation, do the Cultists get 4+ cover (intervening unit + GtG)?

Or do they get 3+ cover (intervening unit +2 for GtG behind an Aegis)?

For my money, they only get 4+ cover. The Aegis isn't actually the cover save being used against this attack, so the "+2 to its cover save" it confers does not apply.

Same with Area and its +2 for GtG in it. If the Area Terrain save isn't the one being used, the +2 for GtG in Area won't apply to some other cover save.

Depends on the situation. If it is a barrage. Then cover saves are taken from the center of the blast. I.E. they are technically in front of the aegis for those saves. So their save would be 4+ (G2G + intervening unit) because even though they have A they no longer satisfy B. It would be the same if you had two enemy units on either side of the aegis. One would grant the +2 while the other would only give +1. Would be the same if a unit was halfway in some area terrain. Models not in the area terrain would only get a +1. Models in the area terrain would get the +2.

Page 19 Models with more than one save, following by the paragraph maximum save cover this particular subject. Some models gain addition benefits form rules that may increase ANY of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover, or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails.

This paragraph seems to be the only area that covers the stacking of saves. Still not seeing anything that removes the blanket.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I was looking at the wording for Defensive Lines on page 105, and noticed it uses the same kind of phrasing that Area does. That if a model is in cover behind it, and goes to ground, it gets +2 to its cover save.

Say you had a unit of cultists and a unit of Oblits, sheltering in a crater behind an Aegis, and being fired at by some Eldar, who are trying to wipe the Cultists off an objective. The Cultists Go to Ground, getting 2+ cover from a unit of Scatter Laser War Walkers, and sustain only a few casualties. Then Greg Sparks, I mean, The Eldar Player ( ), fires a unit of Shadow Weavers at the Cultists, landing a couple of hits in amongst the Oblits, which also clip some cultists, though the center of the blast is in the Oblit squad, so they'll give cover to the Cultists.

Now, in that situation, do the Cultists get 4+ cover (intervening unit + GtG)?

Or do they get 3+ cover (intervening unit +2 for GtG behind an Aegis)?

For my money, they only get 4+ cover. The Aegis isn't actually the cover save being used against this attack, so the "+2 to its cover save" it confers does not apply.

Same with Area and its +2 for GtG in it. If the Area Terrain save isn't the one being used, the +2 for GtG in Area won't apply to some other cover save.

Well if the blast crosses the aegis to hit the cultists then they can use the Aegis and its rules. If it just crosses the Oblits to hit the cultists then they use the intervening models cover save and it's rules. So yes, if they are able to use the Aegis cover save they can make use of its rule when applied to the Aegis' cover save. If they are just loitering around the Aegis and the only cover save they can use is the intervening models cover save then no, they can not use the Aegis' rules to improve it.

 HoverBoy wrote:
They all clearly state what benefit they give in the open.
GTG gives 6+.
Stealth gives 6+.
Shrouded gives 5+.
If you manage to combine them on a single unit that would give it a 3+ coversave in the open.

Yup, 2 special rules being added to a rule. That's how cumulative effects are permitted to work. Also if you throw in a Camo cloak for fun it becomes a 2+.

 Tomb King wrote:


Depends on the situation. If it is a barrage. Then cover saves are taken from the center of the blast. I.E. they are technically in front of the aegis for those saves. So their save would be 4+ (G2G + intervening unit) because even though they have A they no longer satisfy B. It would be the same if you had two enemy units on either side of the aegis. One would grant the +2 while the other would only give +1. Would be the same if a unit was halfway in some area terrain. Models not in the area terrain would only get a +1. Models in the area terrain would get the +2.

Page 19 Models with more than one save, following by the paragraph maximum save cover this particular subject. Some models gain addition benefits form rules that may increase ANY of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover, or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails.

This paragraph seems to be the only area that covers the stacking of saves. Still not seeing anything that removes the blanket.

How would both units not receive the +2 bonus for being obscured by the Aegis? Both units are behind it from the direction of fire and can use it as a cover save, which allows them to use its rules including the +2 cover save. If a model is even partially in area terrain they are still in area terrain, there is nothing that prevents a model partially in Area Terrain from using it as a cover save with all it's rules. The only permission, read as requirement, for using area terrain is that they are in it, partially in it counts as much as wholly in it for the purposes of cover saves. Neither of your statements have any rule citation that even remotely supports them.

As to page 19 and the cumulative bonus', I refer you to HoverBoy's post. These are multiple special rules and wargear rules that add to the base rule of going to ground in the open. You have no permission to use multiple base rules in combination, the rule on page 19 only refers to these additional/special/wargear rules.

 Bausk wrote:


How would both units not receive the +2 bonus for being obscured by the Aegis? Both units are behind it from the direction of fire and can use it as a cover save, which allows them to use its rules including the +2 cover save. If a model is even partially in area terrain they are still in area terrain, there is nothing that prevents a model partially in Area Terrain from using it as a cover save with all it's rules. The only permission, read as requirement, for using area terrain is that they are in it, partially in it counts as much as wholly in it for the purposes of cover saves. Neither of your statements have any rule citation that even remotely supports them.

In order:
If the cover is measured from the blast then they dont get it. If its measured from the firing model then they get it.
My post said unit not model. A unit halfway in area terrain has two different saves. The models in the terrain and the models outside the terrain. Only those actually in the terrain partially or wholly get the +2, others get +1.
As for rules citation... is all i can say. See below.

 Bausk wrote:

As to page 19 and the cumulative bonus', I refer you to HoverBoy's post. These are multiple special rules and wargear rules that add to the base rule of going to ground in the open. You have no permission to use multiple base rules in combination, the rule on page 19 only refers to these additional/special/wargear rules.

We will keep it respectable and I will show you a common training technique we have.
Step action drill:
1. Pick up rulebook.
2. Flip to page 18-19.
3. view page 18-19 and find their is no section called cumulative bonus's.
4. Read Section Maximum Save (Here you will not see: page 19 only refers to these additional/special/wargear rules) (You will find the word ANY though that states: Models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase ANY of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more.)
5. Please stop making up rules.


It is getting increasingly hard to argue with you when you have no rules to back up your argument. Not one rules states what your stating. Whether it be poorly written or deliberately written models in area terrain obscured by a ruin get a 2+ cover save for going to ground. This cannot be refuted without an faq saying otherwise.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I was looking at the wording for Defensive Lines on page 105, and noticed it uses the same kind of phrasing that Area does. That if a model is in cover behind it, and goes to ground, it gets +2 to its cover save.

Good find. It proves that the wording difference isn't likely to be a red herring.

 Tomb King wrote:


In order:
If the cover is measured from the blast then they dont get it. If its measured from the firing model then they get it.
My post said unit not model. A unit halfway in area terrain has two different saves. The models in the terrain and the models outside the terrain. Only those actually in the terrain partially or wholly get the +2, others get +1.
As for rules citation... is all i can say. See below.

Clearly I misread what you said. I though your reference to two enemy units either side of an Aegis was two 'opposed units'. And again with units as models. My bad.

 Tomb King wrote:

We will keep it respectable and I will show you a common training technique we have.

That's not condescending at all

 Tomb King wrote:

Step action drill:
1. Pick up rulebook.
2. Flip to page 18-19.
3. view page 18-19 and find their is no section called cumulative bonus's.
4. Read Section Maximum Save (Here you will not see: page 19 only refers to these additional/special/wargear rules) (You will find the word ANY though that states: Models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase ANY of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more.)
5. Please stop making up rules.

Cumulative bonus's is not a game term but a general use term to describe multiple positive modifiers that add together. I used that term as I was assuming you had a firm grasp of the basic rules and thought I did not have to explain multiple modifiers. I'll break it down for you.

The rules for Multiple modifiers are a given under page 2 of the rule book, multiple modifiers. Here on this page these modifiers, or cumulative bonus's in the specific case of multiple positive modifiers that all add together, are said to be gained by rules (special or otherwise) and wargear..

 Tomb King wrote:

It is getting increasingly hard to argue with you when you have no rules to back up your argument. Not one rules states what your stating. Whether it be poorly written or deliberately written models in area terrain obscured by a ruin get a 2+ cover save for going to ground. This cannot be refuted without an faq saying otherwise.

In no way is it irrefutable as I have said previously this is a permissive rule set. You are only permitted to use one save. You are not permitted to use rules from one save for another. When using that save you only use its rules.

In this particular case your save options are a 5+ Area Terrain save with a +2 GTG or a 4+ Wall with a +1 GTG. Lets ad a 5+ invulnerable and a 6+ armour save for clarification. Now we have the option of taking one of 4 saves. But we have the luxury of being able to use the best of those four, so we choose the 4+ Wall. Now our save is a4+ wall, what are the rules for a 4+ wall cover save? That, and only that, is our selected save. So we only use its rules. We then are able to add multiple positive modifiers to improve our chances.

We can use;
- Stealth special rule if we have it for a for a +1
- Shrouded Special rule if we have it for a +2
- Camo cloak is we have it for a +1
- Go to Ground using the GTG rule for a +1

It comes down to not just the Rule as Written but the Rule as Read. As you have chosen to use the Wall as your cover save its the only Cover Save rule you look up, just because you know there is a rule for GTG in the Cover Save rules for Area Terrain doesn't mean the rule book does when you use the Rules for the Wall. Point being is you need to look at Saves as base save rules with blinders. If you're using one save you ignore all others as they are not being used.

But your not GtG in area terrain if your using the ruins for cover. Your GtG behind the ruin. As you can only use one thing for cover (ie use the best cover save), your GtG using one or the other.

You have to effectively ignore one or the other. you cant cherry pick rules from both.

You dont Gtg "Using" anything.

GtG is just a single action

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You dont Gtg "Using" anything.

GtG is just a single action

Yes, his point was you only use one save and it's rules though. But you could phrase it as "You GTG, using one cover save or the other" and it would be accurate. Pedantry aside his point is valid.

holy jeebus, this is one of those rules i looked over.
ruins are so much better now (not that they werent good before)

 Zheak wrote:
holy jeebus, this is one of those rules i looked over.
ruins are so much better now (not that they werent good before)

How has this thread somehow made ruins 'Much better' when it's still debatable on if a 2+ is achievable?

Bausk - yes, you only get to *use* one cover save, but you GtG in area and you receive +2 to your cover save. WHICH cover save is never considered, as the rules only seem to consider you getting one of each save at any one time, which has always been a puzzling omission as multiple cover saves has been possible for many years now

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - yes, you only get to *use* one cover save, but you GtG in area and you receive +2 to your cover save. WHICH cover save is never considered, as the rules only seem to consider you getting one of each save at any one time, which has always been a puzzling omission as multiple cover saves has been possible for many years now

I'm sorry, where in the rule book are we given permission to use multiple cover saves at the same time rather than using the best of any save we are capable of using? Where are we given permission to use a rule from one save for another?

Your first question: not something I stated, so try restating it into something I did.

I have stated "have" multiple cover saves, not use. there is a difference.

When the rule says "+2 to your save", permission is granted. Find a restriction syaing "only to the save provided by Area Terrain" and you are golden. Oops, that restriction doesnt exist, but is only inferred by you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your first question: not something I stated, so try restating it into something I did.

I have stated "have" multiple cover saves, not use. there is a difference.

When the rule says "+2 to your save", permission is granted. Find a restriction syaing "only to the save provided by Area Terrain" and you are golden. Oops, that restriction doesnt exist, but is only inferred by you.

Really? Lets look up the rules relevant to our discussion.

Lets start with Pages 16-19 under the heading Types of Saving Throws We find three sub-headings listed as; Armour Saves, Invulnerable Saves and Cover Saves. But it's not until Page 19 is there any reference to multiple saves, or as the sub-heading names this Models with more than one Save. Here we find the rule that is in bold stating that "A model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.". Now I've underlined two very important parts to that rule. First is the permission to only use one save and second is the method of determining which save is used from the many that the model is potentially able to use.

After the example given the sub-section goes into detail cover saves in particular stating that "If a model can benefit from different types of cover, for example, being behind a Bloodthorn hedge (6+) and a Barricade (4+), the model uses the best Cover Save available (in this case the 4+)". I'm not seeing where the rules in this section grant permission to use Bloodthorn save rules with the Barricades save, let alone the rules for one save with another in any way.

So Nos, if a model that was eligible to receive a cover save from a 5+ fuel reserve 12" away, a 4+ wall it was standing behind or a 5+ piece of Area Terrain it's standing in; and it made it's cover save for the 4+ wall it would also have to roll for the fuel reserve explosion? If it went to ground, would it then pass that cover save on a 2+ because of the Area Terrains rule only to have to roll an additional D6 for the Fuel explosion from the Fuel Reserve's rule?

You do realise the bold and underlined sections have absolutely no relevance to your claim?

I stated you are only making one saving throw.

Again: find the restriction IN THE AREA TERRAIN rules that states that the +2 to cover save is *only* to the cover save provided by the area terrain

page and graph, and something relevant this time, not things that are not in question.

Been following this for a while, and i think Bausk just hit the head on the nail.
You pretty much have to pick the best cover save available to you. It does not state anywhere in the rule book that if you go to ground behind a ruin while in area terrain that you can achieve a 2+ cover save. It only states that if you go to ground in area terrain you receive a 5+ cover save whether or not you are 25% obscured. There rule thereafter goes on to say that if you go to ground you recieve a +2 to your cover save rather than +1.

Nowhere under the Area Terrain section or the Ruins section does it say that you can smack the 4+ cover save of a ruin and the go to ground bonus of area terrain together to recieve a 2+ cover save. I know you can dream up that there is such a connection, but dont you think that GW in all their wisdom would have stated such an important side bonus to being in cover behind ruins, with a base, on the ground level. They do not.

Well, it does do - because it saves "+2 to your save", and not "+2 to your save provided by Area terrain"

The first is blanket permission, the second is not. A nd Bausk, stop arguiing irrelevancies - youre trying a slippery slope argument, and I'm not falling into your fallacies for you.

I did, you are only allowed to use one save and its rules to the exclusion of all available saves and their rules. You do not 'have' multiple saves only multiple available saves. There is no permission granted in the rules to use one saves rules with another saves rules. As the +2 to GTG is granted under the Area Terrain Cover Saves rules you cannot use it with the Walls Cover Save.

Love how no one answers my question involving the Fuel Reserve.

"to use one save and its rules"
ah, that last bit you just made up.

Have != use. You HAVE cover, invulnerable and armour saves as a potential, but may only USE one of them.

Again: I have shown permission. +2 to your cover save. Find the explicit restriction that states that is "...save provided by area terrain" or some such. Page and graph, in your own time,

Love how your slippery slope fallacy continues to be such. Care to stay on topic?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"to use one save and its rules"
ah, that last bit you just made up.

Have != use. You HAVE cover, invulnerable and armour saves as a potential, but may only USE one of them.

Again: I have shown permission. +2 to your cover save. Find the explicit restriction that states that is "...save provided by area terrain" or some such. Page and graph, in your own time,

Love how your slippery slope fallacy continues to be such. Care to stay on topic?

No, you have shown Area Terrain has an alteration to GTG in its rules. You have not shown permission to mix one Saves rules with another Saves rules. Seeing as the rules state explicitly you only have permission to use one Save; Then one Saves rules are all you get to use when making your Saving Throw.

Lets say this cultist has a 6+ Armour save, a 5+ Invulnerable Save and a 4+ Cover save from a Wall. Which is the best of the 3 available saves and what rules would be used? The best is clearly the Wall so we use the Walls rules, not the Armour Saves rules or the Invulnerable Saves rules. Once you have determined which save, and therefore its rules, you will be using for your Saving Throw you are excluding the use of any other save, and therefore their rules, available previously.

There is a big difference between a Save and Special Rule or item of wargear that specifically alters that save. In the case of Area Terrain, it is a type of Cover Save with its own rules. In the case of Stealth, its a Special Rule that specifically allows use as a Cover save, if you GTG in the open, or applies a +1 to the Cover Save the model is making.

Again, you make a leap with no rules support. A ctually the same leap, but given you just reasserted that leap it was worth pointing out that it is still a leap on your part.

"+2 to your cover save" is "+2 to yoru cover save", and not, as you claim "+2 to your cover save that was provided by area terrain, and no other"

One is the actual rule, the other is something you made up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, you make a leap with no rules support. A ctually the same leap, but given you just reasserted that leap it was worth pointing out that it is still a leap on your part.

"+2 to your cover save" is "+2 to yoru cover save", and not, as you claim "+2 to your cover save that was provided by area terrain, and no other"

One is the actual rule, the other is something you made up.

There is not leap, its a simple fact that you are attempting to use two saves, and by extension their rules, where you are only allowed the use of one save.

The procedure is;

- Wound allocated to model.
- Player selects one Save, which is the best, from all available Saves
- Player rolls Saving Throw using selected Saves rules.

Not;

- Wound allocated to model.
- Player selects one Save, which is the best, from all available Saves
- Player alters selected Save one of the other available Saves rules.
- Player rolls Saving Throw using selected Saves rules altered by a second available Saves rules.

"and by extension".

You do realise that means "leap", yes? Not sure HOW many times it can be pointed out....

No, I am using ONE save. The Ruins 4+ save

There is also a rule stating that, if I am in area terrain and GtG, I get +2 to my cover save.

Now, given Ruins provide a cover save, and I have GtG, I get +2 to my cover save. Because, and this is the point you continnually refuse to even argue, the rule does NOT say "the +2 to your cover save only applies to that save provided by Area Terrain"

So, given you have continually refused to cite the rule restricting the +2 permission to JSUT area terrain, I assume you have conceded that point, and are now attempting to deflect the argument down another path.

If you use an Area Terrain Save and you GTG, what rules would you use if you don't 'make a leap' and assume that you use the rules for Area Terrain Saves and the rules for GTG?

Its not a leap to use the rules you are instructed to use by name.Though it does strike me as a leap assuming you can use more than one Saves rules when you are only allowed to use one Save.

In your opinion, is Area Terrain a type of Cover Save just as much as a Wall is a type of Cover Save or are they collectively a Cover Save?

After reading this thread I feel as though I have a much better understanding of the effects of Area terrain and intervening cover. I would have to tend to disagree with Bausk's claims entirely and side against them. I feel as though going to ground with a unit is a decision which greatly impacts that units ability to move and shoot on the battlefield, and to reflect this severe impact they receive a substantial bonus to their cover save. They take a much more defensive posture and thus this reduces their offensive abilty.

Cmdr Hindsight wrote:
After reading this thread I feel as though I have a much better understanding of the effects of Area terrain and intervening cover. I would have to tend to disagree with Bausk's claims entirely and side against them. I feel as though going to ground with a unit is a decision which greatly impacts that units ability to move and shoot on the battlefield, and to reflect this severe impact they receive a substantial bonus to their cover save. They take a much more defensive posture and thus this reduces their offensive abilty.

Which is covered by the base rules for going to ground. The rules for the Area Terrain Cover Save alter the GTG bonus, these rules do not magically jump to another Cover Saves rules because by doing so you are using more than one Save.

Guess we are gonna have to wait for an official FAQ to get this cleared up, for me cover save rules are obvious, but i can understand how you can get confused and think something else, where there is a will there is a way :-)

I'm on the +2 side. If you are in area terrain, and the shot passes through a ruin (4) you would end up with a 2+ cover save.

is the base of a ruin area terrain? yep, it clearly says so. +2 for G2G.

Just because it also grants a 5+ whether obscured or not, does not change the fact that the model is in area terrain. it just means that if they didn't get a better save for being obscured they still get a cover save.

Bausk wrote: The rules for the Area Terrain Cover Save alter the GTG bonus, these rules do not magically jump to another Cover Saves rules because by doing so you are using more than one Save.

I've read your numerous posts and can see the logic behind your argument but still disagree. I have not stated how I intend to play area terrain with ruins in any way shape or form. Until there is a FAQ to clarify this matter it is something I will discuss with opponent. I am however confused as to why a +1 or +2 to cover would not carry over to the cover which obscures your model. Are you implying that because my Tau vehicles lost the "stealth" special rule and gained "+1 to cover" that this now only applies when My tank is out in the open? Would this not stack with my Jink save or any intervening cover obscuring my tank?

I'm with the people who think that shooting me through a building and 100 feet of thick woods is a near immpossible shot. And the way I interpret the rules raw supports this. The other interpretation seems silly and grasping to me. So in my eyes raw, rai, and hiwpi all agree that it would be a 2+ cover save. I'm not going to repeat arguments that have already been made though... At least not until I have my brb in front of me.

Everyone's welcome to play it however they want, but be sure to check with your T.O. and/or opponent because a LOT of people play it 3+.

Cmdr Hindsight wrote:

Bausk wrote: The rules for the Area Terrain Cover Save alter the GTG bonus, these rules do not magically jump to another Cover Saves rules because by doing so you are using more than one Save.

I've read your numerous posts and can see the logic behind your argument but still disagree. I have not stated how I intend to play area terrain with ruins in any way shape or form. Until there is a FAQ to clarify this matter it is something I will discuss with opponent. I am however confused as to why a +1 or +2 to cover would not carry over to the cover which obscures your model. Are you implying that because my Tau vehicles lost the "stealth" special rule and gained "+1 to cover" that this now only applies when My tank is out in the open? Would this not stack with my Jink save or any intervening cover obscuring my tank?

Not at all, Camo cloaks work just the same as the Tau +1 cover save, they are granted from Wargear and Special rules which are specifically allowed bonus's to the Cover Save you are using. They are not rules from a separate Cover Save being transplanted to the Cover Save your models is using.

Posted a poll for it to see the opinion of the masses.

Loopy and Bausk we both know how you guys play it despite the lack of rules supporting your all's arguments. IMHO it needs faq'd. However, as it stands currently RAW its a 2+ cover save. It is also how I would play it.

 Tomb King wrote:
Posted a poll for it to see the opinion of the masses.

Loopy and Bausk we both know how you guys play it despite the lack of rules supporting your all's arguments. IMHO it needs faq'd. However, as it stands currently RAW its a 2+ cover save. It is also how I would play it.

I would have to agree with you because the RAW even states, gtg in area terrain gives a +2 to THEIR cover save, not a +2 to area terrain cover saves. Which implies RAI that the +2 bonus can be added to their best cover save, which is exactly how stealth and shrouded works where the bonus is given to their best cover save. Be easier if they just said gtg in Area terrain should be treated as shrouded or something to avoid confusion or add better clarification.

 deadrifler wrote:
I would have to agree with you because the RAW even states, gtg in area terrain gives a +2 to THEIR cover save, not a +2 to area terrain cover saves. Which implies RAI that the +2 bonus can be added to their best cover save, which is exactly how stealth and shrouded works where the bonus is given to their best cover save. Be easier if they just said gtg in Area terrain should be treated as shrouded or something to avoid confusion or add better clarification.

It's a circular argument at this point.

Either you believe you can take the +2 out of context or you don't. I interpret it that you cannot, partially due to the other singular reference to "cover save" in the passage which, when also taken out of context, breaks the game more than leaving the +2 in context does.

Either you believe you can take the +2 out of context or you don't. I interpret it that you cannot, partially due to the other singular reference to "cover save" in the passage which, when also taken out of context, breaks the game more than leaving the +2 in context does.

We'll just have to cross our fingers for a FAQ or maybe someone can make some headway at GamesDay regarding the issue.

That would be most pleasant. Hopefully this months 13th will include a main rule book FAQ. I'm not gonna hold my breath though. LOL

 Tomb King wrote:
Posted a poll for it to see the opinion of the masses.

Loopy and Bausk we both know how you guys play it despite the lack of rules supporting your all's arguments. IMHO it needs faq'd. However, as it stands currently RAW its a 2+ cover save. It is also how I would play it.

Funny that you state that there is a 'lack of rules' supporting our stand point, given that the only rule citation you have given is in the rules for a Cover Save and the Rules I've given state you are only allowed the use of one Save but give no permission to mix one Saves rules with another. I've also never stated that your stand point doesn't have merit. Point of fact I can see how it can be misinterpreted to be used with other saves, however to me the rules do not state to use more than one Save so I see no reason to look at any other Saves rules other than the one you are using.

 Loopy wrote:
That would be most pleasant. Hopefully this months 13th will include a main rule book FAQ. I'm not gonna hold my breath though. LOL

Hmm, not sure if you know anything of Blizzard, but we'll go with Soon™

Bausk - it is a leap because you are inferring that the "+2 to cover save" is "+2 to the cover save provided by area terrain"

That is, and remains, your leap. Nothing you can say or do will alter that the current written rules do not support your position, so a FAQ will be needed

If it helps I am TOing a small tourney in a weeks time, and we decided at the outset that we would play it as a 3+, as a 2+ seemed abusive.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - it is a leap because you are inferring that the "+2 to cover save" is "+2 to the cover save provided by area terrain"

That is, and remains, your leap. Nothing you can say or do will alter that the current written rules do not support your position, so a FAQ will be needed

If it helps I am TOing a small tourney in a weeks time, and we decided at the outset that we would play it as a 3+, as a 2+ seemed abusive.

So if you don't get the +2 bonus from area terrain where do you get it from? Cause in my rule book it states that if you GTG in Area Terrain you get a +2 to their cover save rather than the +1 under the sub-heading "Area Terrain". Doesn't sound like a leap if its written plain as day in the rules for Area Terrain.

Really though, I'm just going to assume you intended to say that I'm inferring that it's a "+2 to the Area Terrains Cover Save only". To which I've already provided the relevant rules citations and explained my position. As I've said in my previous post; I understand your sides position and even see how you can draw the conclusion you do from the single rule that you have cited. But simply disagree with your sides interpretation on the basis of the rules for making Saving Throws.

Which ever interpretation you use, have a great tourney.

Again: it says +2 to your cover save. Please find, written in that sentence, where you get "from area terrain" from. Page and graph. Explicit, written words to support what you are saying.

You havent given relevant rules, as has been pointed out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You havent given relevant rules, as has been pointed out.

If you really want me to list them all one more time....

Page 18-19, Types of Saving Throws - Cover Saves, Here are the rules for one type of Saving Throw, referred to numerous times as "a" as in singular, specifically in context of a Model's Save.

Page 19, Types of Saving Throws - Models with more than one Save, Paragraph one (bold print) and three. Here we are told that a Model may only make one Saving Throw regardless of how many Saves the model has available, but it must be the best Save of those available Saves. In paragraph three it further elaborates that multiple Cover Saves are also subject to this rule.

Page 91, Types of Terrain - Area Terrain, paragraph two & three, bold print; These are the Rules for using the Area Terrain Cover Save.


As we are only permitted to use one Save we would only be concerned with its rules. There is no reason to leap to the conclusion that we are also permitted to use rules from any other Save. As the rules to not specifically allow us to or tell us not to, we have to use the basis that this is a Permissive Rule Set. And on that basis we find that we have no permission to use a different Saves rules with the Save we are taking. Therefore we are not allowed to do so.

Yes, and I was never debating you only get to *use* one Cover Save, however you do get to *have* more than one coversave.

Thus, those rules arent actuallly relevant. You can reprint them as much as you like, it does not alter facts.

You have permission to, when GtG, add +2 to your cover save. Is this specifically stated to be your Area Terrain cover save? No? Then you still cannot claim your inferrence as rules, it remains just that - inferred.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, and I was never debating you only get to *use* one Cover Save, however you do get to *have* more than one coversave.

Thus, those rules arent actuallly relevant. You can reprint them as much as you like, it does not alter facts.

You have permission to, when GtG, add +2 to your cover save. Is this specifically stated to be your Area Terrain cover save? No? Then you still cannot claim your inferrence as rules, it remains just that - inferred.

Where are you specifically permitted to use one Saves rules with another? This is what you are claiming based on one Saves rules while trying to ignore the rules that you only have permission to use one Save, not cherry pick the rules from all available Saves. It doesn't, it only gives permission to use the best from those available. Anything beyond using the rules for the best Save available is an inference drawn from the wording in two different Cover Saves rules, therefore are not the rules for making a Saving Throw as written.

Lets say:

-You have five cards numbered one to five with a word written on them available to you.
-You are asked to take only the highest numbered card.
-You are now holding the number five card.
-You read the word on the number five card.

You are stating instead that; You are able to look at all five cards words, hold more than one card and make a new word out of all the cards words in combination. Furthermore you are insisting that you can do this even though you are not given permission to do so.

Because I am IN Area Terrain, and am told that when I GtG I get +2 to my cover save

It does not specify which cover save, so I have no permission to only apply +1, because that would be breaking a rule

Stop breaking the tenets of this forum. Try again, find an actual, written rule stating that the +2 to cover save is ONLY to the cover save provided by Area Terrain

Further refusal to do so will be considered concession that you cannot do so.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'm with you on this, Loopy.

Ruins are not a subcategory of area terrain in 6th ed, unlike 5th. Ruins are solid terrain offering 4+ cover. And IF they have a base, that base is also area terrain. Area terrain, in 6th, is a defined flat area of terrain (with raised elements) which grants non-vehicle models in the area a 5+ save. This 5+ save can be improved by 2 pips by Going to Ground in it, reaching a 3+ cover save. If a model is instead physically obscured by the raised elements of a Ruin, they can claim a 4+ cover save; but this is not coming from Area Terrain, and thus if you GtG with it, you still only get a 3+ cover save (all examples assuming no other stacking special rules like Stealth).

Arguments that the +2 can be applied to other cover saves than the 5+ from area ignore the context of that provision.

I agree with Loopy and you as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because I am IN Area Terrain, and am told that when I GtG I get +2 to my cover save

It does not specify which cover save, so I have no permission to only apply +1, because that would be breaking a rule

Stop breaking the tenets of this forum. Try again, find an actual, written rule stating that the +2 to cover save is ONLY to the cover save provided by Area Terrain

Further refusal to do so will be considered concession that you cannot do so.

I am abiding by the tenets of this forum, just because you disagree with me does not mean that I am breaking the tenets. Furthermore I have no requirement to find a written rule stating specifically that the +2 is only applied to the Area Terrain Cover Save because the rule is listed under the rules for taking Area Terrain as your Save for your Saving Throw. Which I will state one more time for you, you may only take one of.

Because the +2 is granted under the Area Terrain Cover Saves rules you are required, as per the rules for Saving Throws, to be making your Saving Throw on that Save for them to take effect. If you are Taking your Saving Throw on a different Save you must use its rules. As you are not given permission to use another Save in addition to the Save you are taking, you are not given permission to use another Saves rules.

As stated numerous times this is a Permissive rule Set. While we are not expressly disallowed from using one Saves rules with another Save, we are not specifically granted permission to do so either. Which would lead us to the simplest literal interpretation of the rules for Saving Throws; We only use the rules for the Save we have taken as our Saving Throw, not the others that were available.

You tried a real world example. Exactly in breach of the tenets.

You can keep on stating things I agree with, as if you are making a point, that will not alter that you are not

You have permission when you GtG in area terrain to +2 to your cover save. Whcih cover save? Written rule stating this is the Area Terrain cover save.

Your continued refusal is treated as concession. Time for a lock.

tgf wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'm with you on this, Loopy.

Ruins are not a subcategory of area terrain in 6th ed, unlike 5th. Ruins are solid terrain offering 4+ cover. And IF they have a base, that base is also area terrain. Area terrain, in 6th, is a defined flat area of terrain (with raised elements) which grants non-vehicle models in the area a 5+ save. This 5+ save can be improved by 2 pips by Going to Ground in it, reaching a 3+ cover save. If a model is instead physically obscured by the raised elements of a Ruin, they can claim a 4+ cover save; but this is not coming from Area Terrain, and thus if you GtG with it, you still only get a 3+ cover save (all examples assuming no other stacking special rules like Stealth).

Arguments that the +2 can be applied to other cover saves than the 5+ from area ignore the context of that provision.

I agree with Loopy and you as well.

As do I. The context of the rule with regards to the 2+ bonus provided Area Terrain seems pretty plain to me that it applies to the save granted by the Area Terrain itself.

-Yad

Since when is a +2 to cover saves a coversave itself. It is not. You can't argue that. You choose the best of the +4 and +5 cover saves, then you apply appropriate modifiers. The +2 is not a part of the area terrain coversave. It is not the same at all. If you gtg in area terrain, you apply it to your best cover save.

It is not a cover save itself, and it is not a part of area terrain's cover save, so the rules you keep quoting are not even relevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You tried a real world example. Exactly in breach of the tenets.

You can keep on stating things I agree with, as if you are making a point, that will not alter that you are not

You have permission when you GtG in area terrain to +2 to your cover save. Whcih cover save? Written rule stating this is the Area Terrain cover save.

Your continued refusal is treated as concession. Time for a lock.

If you mean the cards, then no that wasn't a real world example. A real wold example would be trying to argue a projectiles trajectory or something like that. I state things you agree on as they go to my point and are relevant to the discussion. You disagree that they are relevant and disagree with my interpretation. And that is what I agree with you on, the rule is written in the Area Terrain Cover Save. I disagree that it applies to all Cover Saves for the reasons I have stated. My refusal is not, nor will it ever be, a concession. I have made my point clear on why I don't need to find a specific rules stating that it only applies to the Area Terrain Cover Save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:
Since when is a +2 to cover saves a coversave itself. It is not. You can't argue that. You choose the best of the +4 and +5 cover saves, then you apply appropriate modifiers. The +2 is not a part of the area terrain coversave. It is not the same at all. If you gtg in area terrain, you apply it to your best cover save.

It is not a cover save itself, and it is not a part of area terrain's cover save, so the rules you keep quoting are not even relevant.

If I asked you to use only the best Save from a Carapace 4+ Armour Save, a Combat Shield 6+ invulnerable Save and a 5+ Cover Save from an Intervening Unit which rules would you use to take your Saving Throw?

I think that the poll pretty clearly shows that this is something that A) needs a FAQ and B) should be discussed at the start of the game with a new opponent (along with such things as the long range weapon extending range of wound allocation mess).

It's off-topic, but I'm still stunned by how many people are confused by and uncomfortable with how range and wound allocation work. It's exactly the same thing as how Line of Sight and wound allocation work.

 Mannahnin wrote:
It's off-topic, but I'm still stunned by how many people are confused by and uncomfortable with how range and wound allocation work. It's exactly the same thing as how Line of Sight and wound allocation work.

It is kind of silly that 1 weapon can extend an entire units kill radius.

Yeah. It's really stupid. Looking at the game from a stark, numbers-based viewpoint, I guess I can see where someone could be unfazed by it, but I think it's the wrong way to adjudicate it. It just makes no real sense. Like, I can see the logic of it in RAW, but it still doesn't make sense.

It's like a puzzle that, for the jigsaw to fit, your picture is messed up, but if you force a piece of the puzzle into the wrong spot ever so slightly, the picture is clear.

I don't care a whit about the jigsaws fitting. I want my picture to look good.

cryhavok wrote:
Since when is a +2 to cover saves a coversave itself. It is not. You can't argue that. You choose the best of the +4 and +5 cover saves, then you apply appropriate modifiers. The +2 is not a part of the area terrain coversave. It is not the same at all. If you gtg in area terrain, you apply it to your best cover save.

It is not a cover save itself, and it is not a part of area terrain's cover save, so the rules you keep quoting are not even relevant.

I would also like to disagree with this. You are allowed to take the best save available. Note, the best save, not the best base and then modify it. IMO you take each save and work out its' final value.

Ruins 4+ if you GTG behind ruins +1 for a final total of 3+
Area terrain 5+ if you GTG +2 for a total of 3+

So the final result is 3+

Cheers

Andrew

 Tomb King wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
It's off-topic, but I'm still stunned by how many people are confused by and uncomfortable with how range and wound allocation work. It's exactly the same thing as how Line of Sight and wound allocation work.

It is kind of silly that 1 weapon can extend an entire units kill radius.

No more silly that it is that 1 guy who can see around the corner of a LOS-blocking wall can allow a whole unit's firing to potentially apply to a model hiding back there, as long as the rest of them can see at least one model in front of the wall.

And no more silly that it was before, when a unit with all 24" range guns could kill a whole bunch of models outside 24", as long as at least one model in the targeted unit was in range.

These situations are all equally abstract, and equally "silly" or not.

The thread that would never die.
Voted for the 2+, makes sense and could not refute it according to RAW. It does not give the either/or option with the GTG rule.

Any that disagree I will roll off with you...

 AndrewC wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Since when is a +2 to cover saves a coversave itself. It is not. You can't argue that. You choose the best of the +4 and +5 cover saves, then you apply appropriate modifiers. The +2 is not a part of the area terrain coversave. It is not the same at all. If you gtg in area terrain, you apply it to your best cover save.

It is not a cover save itself, and it is not a part of area terrain's cover save, so the rules you keep quoting are not even relevant.

I would also like to disagree with this. You are allowed to take the best save available. Note, the best save, not the best base and then modify it. IMO you take each save and work out its' final value.

Ruins 4+ if you GTG behind ruins +1 for a final total of 3+
Area terrain 5+ if you GTG +2 for a total of 3+

So the final result is 3+

Right there with you, Andrew.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This is one of the things I really hate about sixth edition. A 2+ cover save is just stupid in my opinion. I have seen some armies that are simply designed to GTG and snap fire. Like I said really stupid. Fortunately the new Tau have made these kinds of tactics completely redundant.

Did you play 5th edition?
Because it was almost worst back then. You pretty much got a cover save for being on the board.

 AndrewC wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Since when is a +2 to cover saves a coversave itself. It is not. You can't argue that. You choose the best of the +4 and +5 cover saves, then you apply appropriate modifiers. The +2 is not a part of the area terrain coversave. It is not the same at all. If you gtg in area terrain, you apply it to your best cover save.

It is not a cover save itself, and it is not a part of area terrain's cover save, so the rules you keep quoting are not even relevant.

I would also like to disagree with this. You are allowed to take the best save available. Note, the best save, not the best base and then modify it. IMO you take each save and work out its' final value.

Ruins 4+ if you GTG behind ruins +1 for a final total of 3+
Area terrain 5+ if you GTG +2 for a total of 3+

So the final result is 3+

Cheers

Andrew

I agree with this, Nice and clear, best save is taken and no mix'n'mach mods

Bausk - yet you havent provided a rule that actually states what you have asserted. You have inferred a lot, but presented no RAW.

That is what you have effectively conceded; the rule for GtG in area terrain DOES give permission to modify any cover save, and you are claiming it does not. Absent any rules support for your assertion, there is no argument any longer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - yet you havent provided a rule that actually states what you have asserted. You have inferred a lot, but presented no RAW.

That is what you have effectively conceded; the rule for GtG in area terrain DOES give permission to modify any cover save, and you are claiming it does not. Absent any rules support for your assertion, there is no argument any longer.

What specifically have I asserted and inferred? Nothing to my recollection, but I'm happy to hear what you think I have asserted and inferred.

In the mean time lets bring this back around to the start just for kicks seeing as we're throwing around accusations of assertion and inference. It was stated that you, and others, are making a leap of logic to draw the conclusion that "to their Cover Save" mean the Cover Save the model is using as its Saving Throw and not just within the context of the rules of Area Terrain. This is an inference in the same way as being able to infer that "regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured." is to mean that the model gets a 5+ Cover Save even if they are obscured by other terrain or not. Its taken out of context and asserted as the rule as written, without any supporting evidence other than the statement of the rule and saying any other interpretation is wrong.

I'll also be glad to tell you something else you no doubt already know; The rules for Going to Ground are a not found in the rules for Area Terrain but it is mentioned in them. The "blanket", as coined by another poster, rule is Go to Ground. Which we all know offers a+1 to Cover Saves (plural), amongst other rules. However the specific alteration of that rule is found under Area Terrain, which we should all know by now because its been posted about 40,000 times, states; "Models that Go to Ground (read as; use the fore mentioned rule) in Area Terrain receive +2 to their Cover Save, rather than +1".

In context we have a model that is making its Saving Throw (first rule) using the best available. which is a Cover Save (second rule), the model has Gone to Ground (third rule) using Area Terrain (forth rule) so the model receives a bonus of +2 to their Cover Save. Note how there were only four rule references in that statement, not five as you would have us believe by making Area Terrain wrap, like a blanket, around GTG rather than the other way around.

As said, "their cover save" is a singular term used in Area Terrain. The rule books black and white context establishes you are only using one Cover Save well before you get to the terrain section. It's, as in the rule books, assumption is you are reading the rules for Area Terrain if that is the Save you are using for your Saving Throw. Meaning, while you and I are capable of taking every factor into account when we play. The rule book steps though its process with blinders and only uses the factors it needs at the time.

This is why I keep referencing Saving Throws, you are jumping back to this step to look at a second Cover Saves rules while the book is sitting on the Cover Save the model is using as its Saving Throw.

The rule book
1) Available Saves - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

2) Select the best Save

3) Best Save - 5

4) Use the rules for that Save to make your Saving Throw

What you are asserting

1) Available Saves - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

2) Select the best Save

3) Best Save - 5

4) Go back to step 1) and get a sentence from Save 3's rules to apply to Save 5's rules

5) Use the rules for Save 5 with part of the rules from Save 3 to make your Saving Throw

 Mannahnin wrote:
No more silly that it is that 1 guy who can see around the corner of a LOS-blocking wall can allow a whole unit's firing to potentially apply to a model hiding back there, as long as the rest of them can see at least one model in front of the wall.

Are you talking about the blast weapons thing? That's stupid, too. I don't think that's the intent of that FAQ at all. At ALL. But you've seen my arguments in that thread as well.

 Mannahnin wrote:
And no more silly that it was before, when a unit with all 24" range guns could kill a whole bunch of models outside 24", as long as at least one model in the targeted unit was in range.

I think the degree of silliness is far greater for the way it is now. At least you could blame it on stray bullets before. Now the bullets only stray when there's a missile to lead them to the promised land of your enemies' brain-pans.

 Loopy wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
No more silly that it is that 1 guy who can see around the corner of a LOS-blocking wall can allow a whole unit's firing to potentially apply to a model hiding back there, as long as the rest of them can see at least one model in front of the wall.

Are you talking about the blast weapons thing? That's stupid, too. I don't think that's the intent of that FAQ at all. At ALL. But you've seen my arguments in that thread as well.

No. He's saying that if 9 guys in a unit can see 1 guy from the target unit, and 1 guy can see 9 other guys in the target unit, all 10 can be removed from a shooting attack.

GtG is simply a yes/no on/off ability. If you go to ground it is -1 to your cover save. if you go to ground and you happen to be in area terrain it is -2.

can we all agree to that?

no where does it state which cover save it applies to, simply that it modifies your current cover save by -1 or -2

that being said, if i am behind a ruin, i have a 4+ save. if i go to ground behind that ruin, i get -1 to my cover save for 3+ because GtG modifies my cover save.
This makes sense correct? Because GtG can apply to a ruin save because it applies to your cover save? right? right.

But wait! The ruin i'm standing behind is also in an area terrain. So i still have my best save of 4+, but GtG is now -2 because i am in area terrain.
Same exact scenario as 3 lines up, except GtG receives a bonus because i'm in area terrain.

bausk keeps imagining some unwritten link between the -2 and the area terrain 5+ like you can only apply it to your area save. GtG doesn't care what your save is. it only cares where you use it. out in the open = -1 and inside area terrain = -2

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
No more silly that it is that 1 guy who can see around the corner of a LOS-blocking wall can allow a whole unit's firing to potentially apply to a model hiding back there, as long as the rest of them can see at least one model in front of the wall.

Are you talking about the blast weapons thing? That's stupid, too. I don't think that's the intent of that FAQ at all. At ALL. But you've seen my arguments in that thread as well.

No. He's saying that if 9 guys in a unit can see 1 guy from the target unit, and 1 guy can see 9 other guys in the target unit, all 10 can be removed from a shooting attack.

Silly, but still nowhere near AS silly. This is an extreme example of an abstraction in the game. It's more likely to have multiple models able to see a handful of models the rest of the squad cannot. Silly things that are abstractions to make the game faster are understandable.

Silly things that you need to do magical loop de loops of the rules to create are not good for the game. I assert that the argument about blast weapons not able to allocate wounds to entire units out of LOS and the argument about long-range weapons leading bolter rounds to the promised land are broken rules that need fixing. There are certainly people who disagree with me, but I really feel that these two community rulings can't possibly be the intent of the writers. I can't see any way it could be simply due to the silliness of it.

 deviantduck wrote:
bausk keeps imagining some unwritten link between the -2 and the area terrain 5+ like you can only apply it to your area save. GtG doesn't care what your save is. it only cares where you use it. out in the open = -1 and inside area terrain = -2

GtG only provides a -1. The area terrain section has a provision that gives you a -2. The argument is whether the context is relevant or not and it's a good argument.

 deviantduck wrote:
GtG is simply a yes/no on/off ability. If you go to ground it is -1 to your cover save. if you go to ground and you happen to be in area terrain it is -2.

can we all agree to that?

no where does it state which cover save it applies to, simply that it modifies your current cover save by -1 or -2

that being said, if i am behind a ruin, i have a 4+ save. if i go to ground behind that ruin, i get -1 to my cover save for 3+ because GtG modifies my cover save.
This makes sense correct? Because GtG can apply to a ruin save because it applies to your cover save? right? right.

But wait! The ruin i'm standing behind is also in an area terrain. So i still have my best save of 4+, but GtG is now -2 because i am in area terrain.
Same exact scenario as 3 lines up, except GtG receives a bonus because i'm in area terrain.

bausk keeps imagining some unwritten link between the -2 and the area terrain 5+ like you can only apply it to your area save. GtG doesn't care what your save is. it only cares where you use it. out in the open = -1 and inside area terrain = -2

Judging from the last six pages, no we can't agree

Unfortunately while your argument is worthy of merit, the OP scenario was area terrain, behind a ruin. Not that the ruin was the area terrain. There was/is two seperate pieces of terrain, so your hypothesis, again while worthy of merit, isn't really applicable.

Cheers

Andrew

 deviantduck wrote:


bausk keeps imagining some unwritten link between the -2 and the area terrain 5+ like you can only apply it to your area save. GtG doesn't care what your save is. it only cares where you use it. out in the open = -1 and inside area terrain = -2

You're right! I must be imagining that I read it in the Area Terrain rules.

I would agree with you if it was listed under the GTG rules, because then it would be apart of that 'on/off' rule that actually specifically states that it applies to all Cover Saves.

 AndrewC wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
GtG is simply a yes/no on/off ability. If you go to ground it is -1 to your cover save. if you go to ground and you happen to be in area terrain it is -2.

can we all agree to that?

no where does it state which cover save it applies to, simply that it modifies your current cover save by -1 or -2

that being said, if i am behind a ruin, i have a 4+ save. if i go to ground behind that ruin, i get -1 to my cover save for 3+ because GtG modifies my cover save.
This makes sense correct? Because GtG can apply to a ruin save because it applies to your cover save? right? right.

But wait! The ruin i'm standing behind is also in an area terrain. So i still have my best save of 4+, but GtG is now -2 because i am in area terrain.
Same exact scenario as 3 lines up, except GtG receives a bonus because i'm in area terrain.

bausk keeps imagining some unwritten link between the -2 and the area terrain 5+ like you can only apply it to your area save. GtG doesn't care what your save is. it only cares where you use it. out in the open = -1 and inside area terrain = -2

Judging from the last six pages, no we can't agree

Unfortunately while your argument is worthy of merit, the OP scenario was area terrain, behind a ruin. Not that the ruin was the area terrain. There was/is two seperate pieces of terrain, so your hypothesis, again while worthy of merit, isn't really applicable.

Cheers

Andrew

Nothing in the text makes this matter? They are treated the same regardless of the situation. Whether the area terrain be the base of the ruins or area terrain obscured by ruins. They are one in the same.

Neronoxx wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This is one of the things I really hate about sixth edition. A 2+ cover save is just stupid in my opinion. I have seen some armies that are simply designed to GTG and snap fire. Like I said really stupid. Fortunately the new Tau have made these kinds of tactics completely redundant.

Did you play 5th edition?
Because it was almost worst back then. You pretty much got a cover save for being on the board.

As for as I remember you never got a 2+ cover save in fifth edition.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This is one of the things I really hate about sixth edition. A 2+ cover save is just stupid in my opinion. I have seen some armies that are simply designed to GTG and snap fire. Like I said really stupid. Fortunately the new Tau have made these kinds of tactics completely redundant.

Did you play 5th edition?
Because it was almost worst back then. You pretty much got a cover save for being on the board.

As for as I remember you never got a 2+ cover save in fifth edition.

You remember incorrectly, there were situations where you could get a 2+ cover save in 5th ed.

ok bausk, answer this:

p98 Ruins: The Basics
All ruins are difficult terrain and provide a 4+ cover save.
(next paragraph)
A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain.

So... We now have area terrain that is 4+ cover if we are obscured 25%

p91 first column, last paragraph
Modesl that GtG in area terrain receive a +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

do you dispute that this is a 2+?

Why is it so hard to understand that the 4+ cover save is obtained by being obscured by the ruin.

A 5+ Cover save is obtained by being in Area Terrain.

These are 2 different saves, provided by 2 different types of cover. I Think we are all in agreement of that, now the question is: Can you apply the GTG special rule that you have when doing it in Area Terrain, to a cover save you get from a Ruin/Wall ?

If you could, dont you think they would have written it under ruins mayhaps, like they for example did with Defense lines, it doesnt say there that: if you are going to ground behind a defense line, treat the defense line as being area terrain.

Im pretty sure that most of the guys that are cheering for a 2+ GTG cover save thinks that its imba, and usefull, but also full well aware, that its not intended that way. Yes you can draw an invisible line between ruins with an area base, and the cover save from ruins. But that pretty much require that you throw away any knowledge of where you get your cover save from. First of all before making a decision whether or not you want to go to ground, you have to know where your cover save arrives from. What some of you are saying is that: Hey my cover save comes from The Ruined wall AND Area Terrain..

I think the reason why GW makes the reference to area terrain under the "Ruins with a base" is well, what else should they have written ? thought up a new kind of terrain, made it all to be ruins, that wouldnt make sense cause then all the would not provide much cover save, to the nature of them being a ruin. And therefore pretty much made the making of a base for a ruin, redundant.
What they probably havent thought of was that this could lead to a misunderstanding then, and its not that rare that something like this happens, comeon its not like this a small detail, like, move an inch longer while in this terrain or something or shorter, we are talking about a save that pretty much says: Well im sorry mate but my guardsmen comes equipped with a shovel and now they are terminators! :-)

Seriously... whenever GW gets themselves together and FAQ this it can be put to the dirt, pun intended. If they even bother, cause they will probably go like: Really guys ???)

Well and if you are headed to tournaments dont expect this to fly, unless your opponent is new or something heh, fell free to use it in friendly games or something, not many situations where it arrives, a 4+ cover save without going to ground is pretty good, so i would take that and then be able to do stuff next round.

Scenario: 2 squads guardsmen in ruins with area terrain and creed/kell behind spamming: Get back into the fight: TERMINATORS ! If i played it like that i would feel like a 14 year old kid cheating :-)

Well, that was a bit inflamitory. I can understand the viewpoint on the 2+ and the logic behind it. Unlike the extra range allocation from a long range weapon thing, this one actually makes some kind of reasonable sense by the rules and by common sense. I just think the 3+ makes MORE reasonable sense by the rules and common sense.

 deviantduck wrote:
ok bausk, answer this:

p98 Ruins: The Basics
All ruins are difficult terrain and provide a 4+ cover save.
(next paragraph)
A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain.

So... We now have area terrain that is 4+ cover if we are obscured 25%

p91 first column, last paragraph
Modesl that GtG in area terrain receive a +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

do you dispute that this is a 2+?

Yes I do. Here's why;

Page 98 Ruins: Defines Ruins as Difficult Terrain with a 4+ cover save. Yes. The next paragraph defines a Ruins Base as Area Terrain. These are separately defined parts with separately defined rules to a single terrain piece. In much the same was as a multi-part building or a Bastion with a Battlement. The two are on the same terrain piece but have separate rules. The boon for a based ruin is if your on the ground level and not obscured you can still get a Cover Save, where if the ruin did not have a base you would not.

That's Page 91 Area Terrain. You seem to have skipped over that part that defines it as a type of terrain with rules rather than a rule like GTG is.

Bausk - you have inferred "to the save provided by Area terrain" in the rules for GtG in Area Terrain. That is not present. Instead you are told to add 2 to your Cover Save
The Cover Save I take when GtG behind a ruin is 4+ for the ruin> I then add 2.

I have followed all the applicable rules, while inferring none. I have also pointed this out about 10 times now, yet you apparently keep missing it. Impressive

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - you have inferred "to the save provided by Area terrain" in the rules for GtG in Area Terrain. That is not present. Instead you are told to add 2 to your Cover Save
The Cover Save I take when GtG behind a ruin is 4+ for the ruin> I then add 2.

I have followed all the applicable rules, while inferring none. I have also pointed this out about 10 times now, yet you apparently keep missing it. Impressive

I hear what your saying man, I even understand it. I Just don't agree with it, I've said my interpretation and explained this to you in response to your argument. I feel there nothing more to be said between us so how about we let others weigh in their opinions to see if we can both get a different perspective on this?

Others have weighed in, with generally the same opinion - that when you are told "+2 to your cover save", it means precisely that.

You also didnt appear to understand it, as you asked what you had inferred, despite this being pointed out a number of times.

Your claim is that the rule does not need to state "to your Area terrain cover save", our claim is that "+2 to your cover save", as a directive, is clear. Disobeying it by only adding +1 is breaking a rule

 Loopy wrote:
No. This has been discussed before.

3+

You either get 3+ from the area terrain or 3+ from the intervening ruins blocking.

The +2 is applied to the bonus from area terrain. 5+ goes to 3+.

The +1 is applied to the bonus from the ruin. 4+ goes to 3+.

The two cover saves are the same.

What rulebook are you playing from? It certainly isn't warhammer 40k 6th edition.

The rules are clearly written. It would be a 2+ cover save. If you don't like it or agree with it, too bad. Deal with it and move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Loopy wrote:
Well, that was a bit inflamitory. I can understand the viewpoint on the 2+ and the logic behind it. Unlike the extra range allocation from a long range weapon thing, this one actually makes some kind of reasonable sense by the rules and by common sense. I just think the 3+ makes MORE reasonable sense by the rules and common sense.

The rulebook isn't based on common sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - you have inferred "to the save provided by Area terrain" in the rules for GtG in Area Terrain. That is not present. Instead you are told to add 2 to your Cover Save
The Cover Save I take when GtG behind a ruin is 4+ for the ruin> I then add 2.

I have followed all the applicable rules, while inferring none. I have also pointed this out about 10 times now, yet you apparently keep missing it. Impressive

Agree 100%


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fossing wrote:
Why is it so hard to understand that the 4+ cover save is obtained by being obscured by the ruin.

A 5+ Cover save is obtained by being in Area Terrain.

These are 2 different saves, provided by 2 different types of cover. I Think we are all in agreement of that, now the question is: Can you apply the GTG special rule that you have when doing it in Area Terrain, to a cover save you get from a Ruin/Wall ?

If you could, dont you think they would have written it under ruins mayhaps, like they for example did with Defense lines, it doesnt say there that: if you are going to ground behind a defense line, treat the defense line as being area terrain.

Im pretty sure that most of the guys that are cheering for a 2+ GTG cover save thinks that its imba, and usefull, but also full well aware, that its not intended that way. Yes you can draw an invisible line between ruins with an area base, and the cover save from ruins. But that pretty much require that you throw away any knowledge of where you get your cover save from. First of all before making a decision whether or not you want to go to ground, you have to know where your cover save arrives from. What some of you are saying is that: Hey my cover save comes from The Ruined wall AND Area Terrain..

I think the reason why GW makes the reference to area terrain under the "Ruins with a base" is well, what else should they have written ? thought up a new kind of terrain, made it all to be ruins, that wouldnt make sense cause then all the would not provide much cover save, to the nature of them being a ruin. And therefore pretty much made the making of a base for a ruin, redundant.
What they probably havent thought of was that this could lead to a misunderstanding then, and its not that rare that something like this happens, comeon its not like this a small detail, like, move an inch longer while in this terrain or something or shorter, we are talking about a save that pretty much says: Well im sorry mate but my guardsmen comes equipped with a shovel and now they are terminators! :-)

Seriously... whenever GW gets themselves together and FAQ this it can be put to the dirt, pun intended. If they even bother, cause they will probably go like: Really guys ???)

Well and if you are headed to tournaments dont expect this to fly, unless your opponent is new or something heh, fell free to use it in friendly games or something, not many situations where it arrives, a 4+ cover save without going to ground is pretty good, so i would take that and then be able to do stuff next round.

Scenario: 2 squads guardsmen in ruins with area terrain and creed/kell behind spamming: Get back into the fight: TERMINATORS ! If i played it like that i would feel like a 14 year old kid cheating :-)

RAI is not the same as RAW. 2+ Cover save all day.

I choose RAW as 2+.

Mostly from a fluff standpoint I feel that:
Dropping to the ground in a set of trees with a building between you would grant just as much of a benefit as doing the same action without the building between you...if not more so.


I think HYWPI would be 3+ for me if somebody was shooting at me and after explaining the situation to somebody...I got a funny look. I cave easier than some of the super lawyers on here...

SHENANIGANS!!!

 deviantduck wrote:
ok bausk, answer this:

p98 Ruins: The Basics
All ruins are difficult terrain and provide a 4+ cover save.
(next paragraph)
A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain.

So... We now have area terrain that is 4+ cover if we are obscured 25%

p91 first column, last paragraph
Modesl that GtG in area terrain receive a +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

do you dispute that this is a 2+?

Yes, firstly your assertion that the area terrain is a 4+ cover save. The rules are quite clear, Ruins 4+, Area Terrain 5+. Nowhere in the section you are quoting states that it is an area terrain with a 4+ cover save.

Secondly, there has to be some inference to the location of the two rules, GtG is a generic rule under cover saves. Area terrain (GtG) is a specific rule elsewhere. Each piece of cover has to/should be considered seperately for the purposes of determining the final cover save. What we are trying to say is, for example, you can't fire a plasma pistol, but use the range of a bolter because you have both. Each 'thing' has seperate rules that apply only to that 'thing'. I know that Nos will say that the rules don't explicitly say that, and I can respect that position, however inference of the rules must be taken into account or you get some really stupid situations. Take defence lines, I can have a unit of 10 men, 5 infront of the line, 5 behind. If I GtG, the 5 guys infront of the line gets a 5+ cover save, because the way the (exception GtG) rule is written it applys to units, not models. Also please define 'behind'? Is that 1", 10" or 100"?*

We have to infer a lot of rules within the context of how and where they are written. I believe that the +2 cover save, because it is written in the area terrain section, only applies to the save gained from the area terrain and is not a generic bonus, which normally states 'any' cover saves as opposed to 'the' cover save.

RAW and RAI can be interpreted both ways

Cheers

Andrew

* Infact the rule doesn't even say directly behind, so if the line is closer to you than the target then the target is behind the defence line.

Is it possible that the the characteristics of area terrain are completely independent of each other? I mean, they have to be since being difficult ground is one of those characteristics.

So let's look at this one phrase at a time.

What differentiates area terrain from open ground?

1) It's always difficult ground. This has nothing to do with either of the sentences that follow.

2) You receive a 5+ cover save for being in it, without regard to % obscuration. Open ground provides no save on its own.

3) If you GTG, you improve your save by +2. For open ground that is only +1. This is not a dependent clause, just like the first two are not dependent on each other.

The first characteristic defines movement within area terrain. The second defines the cover save provided by area terrain. The third simply modifies the GTG rules while a model is in area terrain and is completely independent of the defined cover save.

For consistency of argument, if you contend that being shot at through ruins while having gone to ground in area terrain does not confer a 2+ save, then you also have to argue that if a model in open ground has gone to ground and is subsequently shot at through ruins, the fact that he has gone to ground is irrelevant and he only can use the 4+ of the ruins.

Not at all. When you go to ground you get +1 to any cover save. When you go to ground in area you get +2 to your cover save.

Area Terrain has a defined set of rules. The three most essential ones are bolded and presented together. The +2 to the cover save is part and parcel of them.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Not at all. When you go to ground you get +1 to any cover save. When you go to ground in area you get +2 to your cover save.

Area Terrain has a defined set of rules. The three most essential ones are bolded and presented together. The +2 to the cover save is part and parcel of them.

And that's all there is to it and much is being read into that. Area terrain provides modifications to three rules: movement, cover saves and GTG. You move as if in difficult ground, you get a cover save of 5+ whether obscured or not and the GTG bonus is +2 instead of +1. None of them modify or depend on the other two. All provide modification for other basic rules. That is RAW.

Nope.

You're making an inference that the GtG bonus applies to any cover save, or to whatever cover save the model chooses to utilize.

I'm making an inference that the GtG bonus only applies to the cover save from the area terrain.

The area terrain GtG rule uses the singular "save", rather than the plural "saves", and it doesn't say "any save" or similar. Compare to Stealth, on page 42, which states that the model gets +1 to its cover saves.

Both your position and mine are founded on inferences; interpreting a rule which doesn't explicitly support either. Mine has additional support from the context of the rule, and IMO seems more likely to be correct based on the consequences of the interpretation; that 2+ cover saves are not easily obtained unless you have a special rule/special terrain type in play.

Redacted by Mannahnin

ajsnips44 wrote:

The rules are clearly written. It would be a 2+ cover save. If you don't like it or agree with it, too bad. Deal with it and move on.

You added nothing to the argument. This is just contradiction.

Personally I feel like this is pretty simple. You're in area terrain, yes, but you're taking a ruin terrain cover save. Which means that you're now utilizing the ruins as your cover, not the area. Sure you're going to ground IN area terrain, but you're not using the area terrain as your save, you're using the ruin cover save. Either way it's 3+.

However I can see why people would think otherwise, but the rules cited (as they have been tons of times now) imply stacking only within themselves. The interactivity seems rather cut and dried just from the plurality and the heavy-handed way the book tells you that saves stack. Area terrain cover save + GTG ==3, ruins cover save +GTG ==3.

However if I was facing you and this raging debate came up I would just give it to you so the game could continue.

Anbutou wrote:
Personally I feel like this is pretty simple. You're in area terrain, yes, but you're taking a ruin terrain cover save. Which means that you're now utilizing the ruins as your cover, not the area. Sure you're going to ground IN area terrain, but you're not using the area terrain as your save, you're using the ruin cover save. Either way it's 3+.

However I can see why people would think otherwise, but the rules cited (as they have been tons of times now) imply stacking only within themselves. The interactivity seems rather cut and dried just from the plurality and the heavy-handed way the book tells you that saves stack. Area terrain cover save + GTG ==3, ruins cover save +GTG ==3.

However if I was facing you and this raging debate came up I would just give it to you so the game could continue.

Either way you are going your making an inference. If you read the rules as they are written though it is just a blanket statement. Nothing states that it is a apart of the area terrain save. It is merely a special rule for area terrain.

Am i in area terrain? Yes! Then if I go to ground I get +2 to my cover save. That has nothing to do with using area terrains cover save.

X

I think at this point it's become a game of who can get the last word in. It's been a good argument, but I think there's nothing to be settled except that it's pretty clear that this is something you're going to have to discuss with your T.O. and/or opponents.

The way many of us read the rules is

you get a 4+ for being in ruins or being shot through ruins.
you get a 3+ for going to ground in ruins

you get a 5+ for being in area cover or being shot through area cover?
you get a 3+ for going to ground in area cover.

So we look at it like you have 2 cover saves to choose from. A 4+ shot through the ruins, or a 3+ for GTG in area terrain.

tgf wrote:
The way many of us read the rules is

you get a 4+ for being in ruins or being shot through ruins.
you get a 3+ for going to ground in ruins

you get a 5+ for being in area cover or being shot through area cover?
you get a 3+ for going to ground in area cover.

So we look at it like you have 2 cover saves to choose from. A 4+ shot through the ruins, or a 3+ for GTG in area terrain.

However, not the majority at least not from the poll results. The +2 to your cover save is listed as a special rule for area terrain nothing states that it is part of the area terrain cover save.

I think that we can all agree that there is a degree of inference in the rules. It would seem that there is an apparent, though not an overwhelming, inclination to take the 2+ save. (Currently running at a 5:4 majority)

I would ask that, to ensure that this does not decend into a "he said, I said" fiasco with a 'last gasp' mentality, could a MOD possibly lock this off before any good is lost beneath repeat shouting?

Cheers

Andrew

I agree with loopy and couple others here.

In this particular case, the area terrain is mere extension of the ruin. This is to say , "if you're behind the ruin, you're behind the ruin and not behind the ruin as well as in area terrain." The area terrain here is explicitly the portion of the terrain that does not have ruined wall erect. Once you're in the ruin, you're no longer in the 'area terrain' despite the ruin physically being modeled on a base which counts as the area terrain.

This case conferring 2+ cover save is like saying, "my model has a ruined wall on its base which covers more than 25% of the model, therefore it gets a cover save of 4+."

It would be ok to use cover on your base, if it weren't for the passage stating that you are supposed to ignore base decorations in regards to cover.

It's pretty cut and dried to me. Models in area terrain get +2 to their cover save. Their cover save happens to be a 4+ because that's their best save. 2+ people.

There is no limitation as to where the cover save comes from.

skchsan wrote:
This case conferring 2+ cover save is like saying, "my model has a ruined wall on its base which covers more than 25% of the model, therefore it gets a cover save of 4+."

That is not actually the same at all.