One last call from being TO that I had to make (against the same guy.... go figure) and want to push this one down the line.

The terrain in question was a ruin with a built base.
Something like this:


In contrast to ruin terrain without a base like such:


The ruling in question:

A non-vehicle model in the bottom rubble of this terrain - Does it get a 2+ save going to ground?

Idea behind this: Ruin area being shot through gives the model a 4+ cover save. BRB page 91 states: "Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1."

Line right before that though states: "Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save,..."

Would the Go to Ground bounce the 4+ ruin cover save to a 2+ save?
Or would the model get a 3+ due to both +1 to the 4+ ruin save and the +2 to a 5+ area terrain save?

Was ruled a 3+ due to the saying of getting a +2 Go to Ground in area terrain and area terrain is a 5+ cover save. (only exception being Iron Bark Forrest.)

It's kind of dumb, but there's nothing preventing you from using the area terrain G2G bonus while not using the area terrain's own cover save.

However, the rule is quite clear in this case. The ground floor of the ruins is treated as area terrain. Area terrain has a 5+ cover save.

So a 3+ cover save is correct.

Cheers

Andrew

Seconding the above. The +2 can only apply to the 5+ save not to the 4+ even if they're say, standing in area terrain while partially behind a ruined wall.

I disagree. The rule does not say the model going to ground receives +2 to the cover save granted by the Area Terrain. It simply says it receives +2 to its cover save. This is the same wording of Stealth and Shrouded.

 Dakkamite wrote:
The +2 can only apply to the 5+ save not to the 4+ even if they're say, standing in area terrain while partially behind a ruined wall.

A good rule which suffers from the inconvenience of not existing.

This pops up every so often. It seems that a majority of people see the allowance on all cover saves (so an Ork biker would get it with the Exhaust Cloud special rule), where as others see it as only applying to the cover save granted by the area terrain itself.

I think th ecorrect ruling is based upon what the area terrain is ruled as ...

Area Forest-- forest start at 5+ going to ground gives you a +2 bonus in area terrain. Hence a 3+ save

Area Ruins-- Ruis start at a 4+ going to ground gives you a +2 bonus in area terrain. Hence a 2+ save.

But in either case, the TO has the final call on that one.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. The rule does not say the model going to ground receives +2 to the cover save granted by the Area Terrain. It simply says it receives +2 to its cover save. This is the same wording of Stealth and Shrouded.

I am not trying to call you out, but you may want to look up Stealth and Shroud SR's.

Both Stealth and Shroud are written that they get 1 and 2 "better" (respectively) cover saves, even when no cover is present.

The GtG rule in area terrain says that you get +2 in area terrain. Does this apply to another cover save? or only the 5+ area terrain save?

jazzpaintball wrote:
The GtG rule in area terrain says that you get +2 in area terrain. Does this apply to another cover save? or only the 5+ area terrain save?

The GTG in area terrain rule actually says "Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." (91)

So if a model is in area terrain and that model GTG it receives +2 to its cover save.

A model can have more than one cover save.

If you are sufficiently obscured by a ruin you have a 4+ cover save, and if you are also in area terrain and go to ground you get a +2 to the cover save. A 2+ cover save is possible in this instance.

Pyrian wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
The +2 can only apply to the 5+ save not to the 4+ even if they're say, standing in area terrain while partially behind a ruined wall.

A good rule which suffers from the inconvenience of not existing.

Thats my interpretation of the rule, wasn't meaning to imply it was RAW

This one is one of those things that gets debated without getting a clear winner, whichever way the TO calls it is good. I'm on the +2 side though.

There are two seperate rule situations being argued here. Firstly the OP scenario is clearly a 3+ save. There is no 'ruin' giving a 4+ cover save. The rules are quite clear, the ground floor is treated as area terrain, so that means it has a 5+ cover save base, not a 4+ base.

The problems arise when you have two seperate pieces of terrain, one behind another, ie a ruin infront of ,eg, a crater. The situation really needs a FAQ.

Personally I don't feel that a 2+ cover save should be so easily come by. YMMV.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
There are two seperate rule situations being argued here. Firstly the OP scenario is clearly a 3+ save. There is no 'ruin' giving a 4+ cover save. The rules are quite clear, the ground floor is treated as area terrain, so that means it has a 5+ cover save base, not a 4+ base.

The problems arise when you have two seperate pieces of terrain, one behind another, ie a ruin infront of ,eg, a crater. The situation really needs a FAQ.

Personally I don't feel that a 2+ cover save should be so easily come by. YMMV.

Cheers

Andrew

The OP said in the situation that the model was in area terrain (5+ cover) and obscured by the ruin (4+).

No, he said it was in the area terrain at the bottom of the ruin, using the first picture as the example.

Cheers

Andrew

The piece of terrain in question:

Roughly 12 inches by 15 inches.

Essentially a torn down building

4 corners of a building physically there. Each side of the walls extending about 3-6 inches from the corner and about 6 inches in height at the peak of each corner.

The 'centers' of the walls were non-existant.

There was roughly a 1.5 inch 'skirting' of base from the supposed walls.

Firewarriors were entirely in the tile of the terrain. 1 or 2 models within the skirting of the terrain. The other 8 or 9 models were within the center of the destroyed 'building.'

Tau player fought for all fire warriors to have a 2+ save due to going to ground within ruin area terrain.

Would you give all a 2+ save?
Would you give all a 3+ save?
Or would you make each model do a different save based on whether or not a standing wall was 25% covering the model taking the save from the source of the shooting attack?

jazzpaintball wrote:
The piece of terrain in question:

Roughly 12 inches by 15 inches.

Essentially a torn down building

4 corners of a building physically there. Each side of the walls extending about 3-6 inches from the corner and about 6 inches in height at the peak of each corner.

The 'centers' of the walls were non-existant.

There was roughly a 1.5 inch 'skirting' of base from the supposed walls.

Firewarriors were entirely in the tile of the terrain. 1 or 2 models within the skirting of the terrain. The other 8 or 9 models were within the center of the destroyed 'building.'

Tau player fought for all fire warriors to have a 2+ save due to going to ground within ruin area terrain.

Would you give all a 2+ save?
Would you give all a 3+ save?
Or would you make each model do a different save based on whether or not a standing wall was 25% covering the model taking the save from the source of the shooting attack?

Each model's save would be based on how much the ruin obscures them. Any model that is 76+% visible to all firing models has a 5+ cover save. Each model that is at least 25% obscured to any firing model would have a 4+ cover save. If the unit goes to ground...then you have a debate. Those with just a 5+ will have a 3+ cover save. Those who have the 4+ will have either a 2+ or a 3+ depending on how your group (or TO) rules it.

Saves are by model

steinerp wrote:
Saves are by model

i understand that.

What I am still trying to figure out is when the models are 25% obsscurred by the wall, will the models get a 3+ from going to ground behind a ruin or going to ground in area terrain, or does the model get a 2+ save from going to ground in area terrain behind said ruin?

He has a 3+ save. The problem is that the rules for 'based' terrain, replaces that of the original terrain piece. As I have said before the rules specifically point out that the terrain is treated as area terrain. Area terrain has been clearly delineated as a flat 5+ save as per the BRB.

Cheers

Andrew

To begin with, let me state I have always hated area terrain. The fact that you have to simply be on one side of a line in the sand causes so many problems and can be exploited quite well. The above ruin is a prime example of this, just look at the size of those damn bases. I don't have anything for reference, but they must stick at least a few damn inches out of the ruins themselves! Given that it classifies as difficult terrain, having a large area base around a ruin makes it a lot harder to charge or otherwise get closer to the models within.

Sorry, mini rant out of the way.

This is now starting to become more gray for me then I first realized. I was going to poke the order of operations to get an answer but I was faulted by one simple question: If you take a cover save from the ruin rules, do you also get to evoke the area terrain rule?

Page 19, models with more then one save, simply states you use the best cover save. There is no defining what the best cover save is, or I should say how you come to conclude which is the best. Given that we can apply several different order of mathematics and logic to this question, it is very easy to get different answers as to what the 'best cover save' actually is. I can see, equally valid, at least three separate order of operations.

The first involves calculating the numbers based on keeping the 'cover types' separate. For this you start with the base number and then apply only the rules suitable to that type of cover. You continue through the rules till you have the end result each type of cover save and simply select whatever give you the best chance.

The second involves selecting the cover type giving you the best save before you look at any thing else. Only then do you apply any rules related to that cover type and only that cover type. This does take away the freedom of choice, it all can be calculated automatically, but it comes to the best answer still regardless. It would be very rare, I can't imagine it, for a serious of bonus on on open terrain to lower the number to a better result then any other terrain. The majority of bonuses that adjust cover saves are universal, applied to both possible options, with only a handful being precise to a certain type of terrain.

The third is simply the 'all in the pot' method. Throw all the numbers into a pot and then simply apply whichever of the rules you want to evoke to both starting numbers in any combination you wish. You simply start with the best cover save available and treat all rules that could modify it as valid regardless of where they are coming from. It reeks of manipulation in order to get the upper hand, but I can't discard the argument on that alone as many gray areas have been answered by 'whatever gets you the best result' when it came to FAQs.

I lean towards the first being correct, on the simple ground I have not seen anything giving permission to mix the rules for different cover types.

 AndrewC wrote:
He has a 3+ save. The problem is that the rules for 'based' terrain, replaces that of the original terrain piece. As I have said before the rules specifically point out that the terrain is treated as area terrain. Area terrain has been clearly delineated as a flat 5+ save as per the BRB.

The rules for based terrain in no way replace the cover granted by the ruin.

"A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain." (98)

The rules specifically point out that the base of a ruin is treated as area terrain, not the ruin itself. So the above section of your quote, that I underlined, is incorrect.

Therefore a model, that is in the area terrain of a ruins base, and 25% or more obscured by the walls, or other elements of, the Ruin has a 4+, and a 5+ cover save, though it needs to take the best save available to it. If said model goes to ground he adds +2 to his cover save, as he is going to ground in area terrain.

jazzpaintball wrote:
What I am still trying to figure out is when the models are 25% obsscurred by the wall, will the models get a 3+ from going to ground behind a ruin or going to ground in area terrain, or does the model get a 2+ save from going to ground in area terrain behind said ruin?

If a model is in area terrain it gets a +2 to its cover save for going to ground.

"Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." (91)

Basically you have to ask one question:

1) Has the model gone to ground in area terrain?

If the answer is yes the model receives +2 to its cover save. If the same model is 25% or more obscured by a fortification it will Technically have a 1+ cover save (Though 2+ is the lowest you can get so the model will get a 2+ cover save, but if something reduces the cover save by 1 then it will still have a 2+ cover save).

Deathreaper. No.

Had the terrain been two seperate pieces then the argument holds merit. However this is a single piece of terrain. Please show me where in the rules you can have area terrain with a 4+ cover save?

There isn't. Had there been a disclaimer that the cover save for area terrain may vary, then fine go with it, but there simply isn't.

The rules for area terrain is quite clear, the base is considered area terrain, it doesn't say 'area terrain with a 4+ save', it doesn't say 'this is ruins but is considered to also be area terrain.'

It says treat the base as area terrain. No exceptions, conditions or caveats. So the ruins become area terrain, and that means a 5+ save.

Cheers

Andrew

You are totally misunderstanding how Ruins with bases work.

The base is Area Terrain, however the vertical walls are still Ruins. So if the model is obscured by the walls it will have a 4+ cover save, and it will also have a 5+ save just for standing on the base regardless of being obscured or not.

Well to be purely RAW here going to ground in area terrain makes your cover save worse.

just going to ground adds 1 to your cover saving throw. so you add 1 to the roll of your dice.
stealth improves the save by 1
shroud improves the save by 2
G2G in area terrain gets +2 to the cover save.

so just remind the guy pulling this that 5+2=7, or 4+2 equals 6 (pg 2) and offer your calculator if he wants to check your math.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Well to be purely RAW here going to ground in area terrain makes your cover save worse.

just going to ground adds 1 to your cover saving throw. so you add 1 to the roll of your dice.
stealth improves the save by 1
shroud improves the save by 2
G2G in area terrain gets +2 to the cover save.

so just remind the guy pulling this that 5+2=7, or 4+2 equals 6 (pg 2) and offer your calculator if he wants to check your math.

This is not true at all, a 4+ cover save -2 to the cover save, is a 6+ cover save. With a 4+ cover save, +2 results in a 2+ cover save. Cover saves work in reverse math as per page 18

"Models in a unit that has gone to ground lmmediately receive +1 to their cover saving throws."
and
"Models that are not currently in a position that would give them a cover save can still Go to Ground by diving to the floor (or some other evasion technique) and receive a 6+ cover save."

establish that if you have a cover save of - (The worst possible value) and you add one to that it becomes a 6 working in the opposite direction of normal math.

 AndrewC wrote:
Deathreaper. No.

Had the terrain been two seperate pieces then the argument holds merit. However this is a single piece of terrain. Please show me where in the rules you can have area terrain with a 4+ cover save?

It does not exist, and you are misunderstanding the rules, or what I am saying, or both.

There isn't. Had there been a disclaimer that the cover save for area terrain may vary, then fine go with it, but there simply isn't.

Which, of course, does not matter at all.

The rules for area terrain is quite clear, the base is considered area terrain, it doesn't say 'area terrain with a 4+ save', it doesn't say 'this is ruins but is considered to also be area terrain.'

It says treat the base as area terrain. No exceptions, conditions or caveats. So the ruins become area terrain, and that means a 5+ save.

I never claimed the base gave anything but a 5+. You are right the BASE is area terrain, but the walls that are on the base are not the base, they are the ruin itself.

The ruin itself (The walls and elements of the actual ruin, not the base, give a 4+ as per the rules).

So if you are on the base you have a 5+, if you are sufficiently obscured by the walls and elements of the actual ruin you have a 4+ cover save as per the rules. If you are both on the base and sufficiently obscured by the walls and elements of the actual ruin you have a 5+ and a 4+ cover save as per the rules.

 AndrewC wrote:
Please show me where in the rules you can have area terrain with a 4+ cover save?

This rule does not exist. However, Death Reaper did not say that it did exist. You misunderstood what he said. Read it again.

the ruins become area terrain, and that means a 5+ save.

Show in the rules where it says "ruins become area terrain." It does not. It says something else.

I want to thank you for that, it opened a whole new possible solution to this problem. I was going to laugh at the technically of it all, and point out this is why systems should always be 'higher is better' or 'lower is better' and not a mix of the both. But then it got me to thinking...

What if the term saving throw is not talking about the target value, but the act of rolling the dice?

Till this point I have been treating it as a defining term. All the saves within this section of the books are 'saving throws' kind of thing. Nothing more then a good place to group similar rules in a way format that is easier to follow. This was compounded by the fact the book, and everyone else, drops the word 'throw' and shortens the word saving down to save. This made using the term "X saving throw" interchangeability with "X save" became common to me.

By making it so 'save characteristics' and 'saving throws' are two separate things a lot of the confusion goes away!

The act of making a saving throw involves rolling a D6 verse a predetermined value. Anything that modifies the 'saving throw' would not be modifying the determined value but the dice roll itself. We are no longer looking at something formatted like this: "1d6 Vs 4+2" but are now looking at something along the lines of "1d6+2 Vs 4."

That would make sense, consider how the going to ground section is actually worded, even though the target is 'lower the better.' It can't be talking about the save characteristic being modified, as that would make no sense, so it has to be the dice roll. Other sections are far better worded so they do not cause this problem, as they do not use +1 terminology but 'considered 1 better.' This means you could easily apply to the save characteristic and still come to the very same result if you applied it to the dice throw itself.

JinxDragon wrote:
To begin with, let me state I have always hated area terrain. The fact that you have to simply be on one side of a line in the sand causes so many problems and can be exploited quite well. The above ruin is a prime example of this, just look at the size of those damn bases. I don't have anything for reference, but they must stick at least a few damn inches out of the ruins themselves! Given that it classifies as difficult terrain, having a large area base around a ruin makes it a lot harder to charge or otherwise get closer to the models within.

Oh god, not more of this. I have to fight to get area terrain into my games these days. It's easy to say "feth area terrain" when your running an army with decent armour saves, but your also saying "feth Orks, Tyranids, and (to a lesser extent) Imperial Guard" when you do so. If my options are a) put the boys in the open with no save or b) have 10% of my squad able to see the enermy but get cover, I'm going to choose c) find another board to play on and if necessary, another player to play against!

JinxDragon wrote:
I want to thank you for that, it opened a whole new possible solution to this problem. I was going to laugh at the technically of it all, and point out this is why systems should always be 'higher is better' or 'lower is better' and not a mix of the both. But then it got me to thinking...

What if the term saving throw is not talking about the target value, but the act of rolling the dice?

Till this point I have been treating it as a defining term. All the saves within this section of the books are 'saving throws' kind of thing. Nothing more then a good place to group similar rules in a way format that is easier to follow. This was compounded by the fact the book, and everyone else, drops the word 'throw' and shortens the word saving down to save. This made using the term "X saving throw" interchangeability with "X save" became common to me.

By making it so 'save characteristics' and 'saving throws' are two separate things a lot of the confusion goes away!

The act of making a saving throw involves rolling a D6 verse a predetermined value. Anything that modifies the 'saving throw' would not be modifying the determined value but the dice roll itself. We are no longer looking at something formatted like this: "1d6 Vs 4-2" but are now looking at something along the lines of "1d6+2 Vs 4."

That would make sense, considering that everything which boosts a saving throw is always a positive, even though the target is 'lower the better.' Being the most commonly modified saving throw, it is the best example for finding what gives bonuses. It makes no sense to take equipment that makes your saves worse but everything there is +1 or +2. It can't be talking about the save characteristic being modified, as that would make no sense, so it has to be the dice roll.

I've always looked at it that way (1d6+2 vs 4) but convert it it my head when talking to others who don't grok it that way.

JinxDragon wrote:
What if the term saving throw is not talking about the target value, but the act of rolling the dice?

It is not, as my quote about going to ground states that models that have GTG "receive +1 to their cover saving throws." (18)

that same page also says

"Models that are not currently in a position that would give them a cover save can still Go to Ground by diving to the floor (or some other evasion technique) and receive a 6+ cover save."

Conclusive evidence that the +1 does not modify the "act of rolling the dice".

By making it so 'save characteristics' and 'saving throws' are two separate things a lot of the confusion goes away!

But ultimately not how the rules are written.

The act of making a saving throw involves rolling a D6 verse a predetermined value. Anything that modifies the 'saving throw' would not be modifying the determined value but the dice roll itself. We are no longer looking at something formatted like this: "1d6 Vs 4-2" but are now looking at something along the lines of "1d6+2 Vs 4."

That would make sense, considering that everything which boosts a saving throw is always a positive, even though the target is 'lower the better.' Being the most commonly modified saving throw, it is the best example for finding what gives bonuses. It makes no sense to take equipment that makes your saves worse but everything there is +1 or +2. It can't be talking about the save characteristic being modified, as that would make no sense, so it has to be the dice roll.

again, not true as per page 18

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. The rule does not say the model going to ground receives +2 to the cover save granted by the Area Terrain. It simply says it receives +2 to its cover save. This is the same wording of Stealth and Shrouded.

No, the phrasing is actually different. The area terrain rules say that they give a 5+ save, and that a model GtG in them receives +2 to its cover save; singular.

Stealth and Shrouded both say that models which have them count their cover saves (plural) as being 1pt better or 2pts better, respectively.

IMO the +2 to the singular cover save, referred to in the area terrain rules means that 5+ conferred by the area terrain. It means that 2+ cover is not readily available without adding a special rule (aegis line, stealth, camo cloaks, stealth from night fighting) on top of GtG.

This is my exact thought process when I made the call for it to be a 3+ save.

Death:
Where on page 18 does it say that an addition of 1 point means subtraction from the end result?

Addition and subtraction are the same thing once you get past elementary school arithmetic. Subtraction is just adding a negative number. But people still use the term subtraction casually and colloquially for convenience.

This leads to people being wiseasses about it when a game writer uses a colloquial term and inadvertently expresses a mathematical concept in a way which means the opposite of his intent, when read from a strict mathematical perspective instead of a casual, colloquial one.

JinxDragon wrote:
Death:
Where on page 18 does it say that an addition means subtraction?

Basically it is a few rules combined that tell us this.

Page 2 establishes that a save value runs from 2+ to - for models with no save.

Page 16 tells us that the lower the number of a save the better it is.

page 16 also tells us there are a few different types of saving throws. this equates all of the save values into using the 2+ to- scale just like armor saves.

So a 2+ is a better save than a 6+ which is a better save than a -

Finally Page 18 tells us exactly what I quoted before, that a +1 to the cover save from going to ground will give a model without a current cover save a 6+ cover save.

This tells us that adding one brings the save to a lower value instead of a higher value.

"The odd characteristic out is Armour Save (Sv) which can run from 2+ through 0+ to - (for models with no Armour Save)." (2)

"unlike other characteristics, an Armour Save is better if it is a lower number." (16)

"All these forms of protection are represented by saving throws (sometimes called saves), as we'Il now discuss." (16)

Mannahnin, I don't fault that the intent of going to ground is clear here, who would go to ground if it made your cover save worse.

The fact is they have been very careful with the wording in every section other then going to ground is part of the problem. Every other section talks about treating the "cover saves" as one better. Not only do they use the term cover save directly, which can be applied easily to the save characteristic, but they go out of their way not to put a + or - to it at all. This way, regardless of how you carry out the math behind it all, you will always come to the same outcome. One better to the save characteristic can easily be argued as -1 to the save characteristic because of the way it was worded. It can also be argued as 1 better to the 'saving throw' itself.

Either way, same outcome.

Going to ground uses the full terminology 'saving throw,' and doesn't say to treat it one better but to actually +1 to this saving throw. If we where to treat them as very same terms, then for all rules as written purposes it would be a +1 modifier to the save characteristic. It doesn't state to treat the characteristic as one point better, it simply states +1. Unless you can quote some rule that allows me to either re-write that +1 as 'one point better' then I do not have permission to do anything but treat it as a basic modifier.

Treating the term 'saving throw' to mean the dice roll, we end up with the positive outcome that clearly is intended.

The issue there is they have stated you can reduce "saving throw" to "save." This creates a problem for me because a previous part of the book already using the term the word 'save' to talk about a certain characteristic. We now have the possibility of 'save' to be either talking about the characteristic found on the model profile, or terrain rules, or the act of rolling a D6 vs this characteristic. The book has defined it as meaning both and for the most part uses the two interchangeably!

I do feel the need to point out that the going to ground rules use the full terminology of 'cover saving throw' which is the act of rolling a dice against the characteristic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Death:
Wrote up a devil advocate post but even if I was drunk I could pull the damn thing to shreds. It comes down to the fact the rule can easily be read as a therefore statement, similar to other rules that are worded way better. It could still be an if/then statement, but I would expect it to define the first bullet point with starting words along the line of 'if you are in cover....'

I still think you are overlooking what I keep putting forth:

While it is possible for 'X saving throws' and 'X save characteristics' rules to both be shorted down to 'X save' they haven't done that within the going to ground rules. They do not talk about about modifying the cover save at all. They do not talk about modifying the cover save characteristic at all. They specifically use the words 'cover saving throw.'

We could make an argument that modifying the saving throw process would allow us to modify the save characteristic. After all, it is mentioned as part of the saving throw process and modifiers that are applied directly to save characteristics do so at this time as well. Yet at this time we can modify the throw itself, the rolling of the dice, and you get to the correct outcome simply doing so.

Why go through the process of converting the +1 into a -1, based on logical arguments that it should of been one in the first place, when you can simply get the same result by applying it to the dice?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
One last thing to consider: The section that talks about maximum saves has two major points. It states that no individual save can be improved past 2+ and that a dice roll of 1 automatically fails. This highlights that there are ways to modify both the dice roll as well as the characteristic itself, even at the same time.

The +1 Going to Ground modification works if applied to the dice, and you have permission to apply it to the dice, so why do anything more complicated?

This one seems pretty open and there is no majority side like my others.

Due to this, a poll has been started. Please vote.

Thank you for all your help everyone, greatly appreciated.

I can't answer the poll, sorry. This is not something I know either way, I was sure it was a 2+ to begin with but now I am less certain. There is still the issue concerning the question: Can you evoke rules for one type of cover while you are using the numbers of a second type of cover?

JinxDragon wrote:
I can't answer the poll, sorry. This is not something I know either way, I was sure it was a 2+ to begin with but now I am less certain. There is still the issue concerning the question: Can you evoke rules for one type of cover while you are using the numbers of a second type of cover?

If someone tries to shoot you through 100 yards of trees and a building should it be harder to hit you than if he were just shooting through a hundred yards of trees? This is why, even though I can see the logic on both sides, I am on the 2+ side.

Logically yes, but the rules don't work that way.

If someone shot my commander through the walls of a ruin I get a 4+ cover save. If that same shot went through a bunch of trees, intervening models and the walls of a ruin I still only get a 4+ cover. Logically, the chance of the second shot hitting me is far lower then the chance of the first so I should be able to claim a better save. However, I am forced to select the one type of cover that gives me the best bonus.

This is a matter of warhammer rules, logic doesn't even count.

I would simply be more comfortable with a rule giving me permission to select both types of cover save being offered in this situation, with all the subrules involved. That way it isn't a gray area of 'can I take both rules? they both apply to the situation but it states to chose a cover type' that it currently is. I simply am missing something that would allow me to say for certain either way. Until I have that I am going to treat it as a case by case situation and finding out how my opponent wants to play it.

The only thing I can come close to providing an answer is the model with more saves section of the book. Sadly, while it starts of claiming you have to take one type of cover over another it falls apart to the end. It is easy to argue the 'one type of cover' limitation was only talking about the save characteristic provided, not the sub-rules. Also, I can get around it with creative timing arguments. In short, going to ground happens before wound are assigned and cover saving throws are taken so I could evoke one rule during going to ground and the other during the cover saving throws.

Legal, I don't know?

Is the model in area terrain? Yes, therefore it gets a 5+ cover save and can go to ground to add +2 to its cover save.

Is the model obscured by ruins? Yes, therefore it gets a 4+ cover save.

Is there any rule that prevents the model from gaining the +2 from going to ground on a cover save granted to it by anything other than area terrain? No, therefore you use the best save available, the 4+ from area terrain gaining +2 from going to ground for a total of a 2+.

There is no ambiguity in the rules here, any ambiguity is being fabricated by people who think the ability to get a 2+ cover save is overpowered, despite how there are plenty of easier ways to get a 2+ save that don't decrease unit performance.

I suggest the yes camp read page 18 again, there it clearly states that your cover save depends on what you are sheltering behind. When getting shot at here in 40K, you pick the best save and make your save, if you choose to go to ground, the logical thought process is that you look at where your save comes from and the proceed to work out the bonus from that save. What you are saying is, yeah well im gonna claim the ruins cover save, but i am gonna use the bonus from my area terrain. Its very easy to mix and match those together when you are in a ruin with a base, but if you take the two terrain features apart, and say put a ruin 20" away from a piece of area terrain, the issue instantly becomes much clearer. It is in fact the same exact issue, but it becomes a little clearer

Next issue: ok it does not say anywhere that i cant use GTG bonus from area terrain to any other cover save because it says "to their cover save". Well look at it this way, imagine for a moment that you havent read a single line of the rule book, and you open it up and the first paragraf you read is this:

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

When they mention the part about going to ground, and recieving a +2 to their cover save what cover save do you think they are talking about ? All cover saves ? no that doesnt make any sense, unless you really want it to. They even say the words: rather than +1. And we do know because we have read the book that you get +1 from going to ground anywhere else, defense lines apart (wording here is pretty much the same). The connection here is that going to ground in area terrain is a special bonus.

Following this i have a question: I am in a piece of area terrain, in front of me 10" away there is a fortification, i am obscured by it at least 25%. I am getting shot at and would normally get a 3+ cover save, but i really dont want to die so i go to ground. Is my cover save now 1+ ? :-)

Maximum save rule comes into affect, they can be found on page 19. The long and short of it though is simple. No save characteristic can ever be modified below 2+. Any rolls of 1 are considered automatic failures, regardless of any modifiers in play. You simply can not become immortal through all of this, trust me I looked into it.

I would also point out that, thanks to the duel use of the terminology cover save. They could be talking about the 'cover saving throw' and not the 'cover save characteristic.' As it is referencing the going to ground rule in this exact situation, and that rule uses the 'cover saving throw' terminology in relation to the bonus, I have to conclude they are talking about a cover saving throw here as well. It can easily be argued that you do not automatically lose the saving throw bonus simply by using a different cover type's save characteristic, because they are granted by two separate rules at two different times, with no conflict occurring between them because it is designed to work that way.

Put me down for 2+ actually, I have three or four arguments for and only one against that is getting weaker every time I review it.

No your Cover Save is 2+ as you cannot have better than that, page 19, Maximum Save.

I am firmly with DeathReaper here.

The rules are clear enough.

1) A ruin gives me a 4+ Cover Save if I am 25% obscured by it.
2) Area Terrain, which I also happen to be in has three effects:
2a) Just for being in the terrain I have a 5+ Cover Save. I won't use it though, as I have a better one from the ruin.
2b) I'm in difficult terrain, which doesn't matter right now as I'm not moving.
2c) If you GtG in Area Terrain, you get a +2 to the Cover Save rather than the usual +1.

So my cover save is 4+ because the wall is in the way, I get +2 for going to ground whilst in area terrain, hence the save is 2+.

Yes i know that there is a maximum save, the question was a rhetorical one.
Following the "yes" logic i would have a 1+ save, but since there was a maximum save i cant have that kind of save. You really dont see that you are taking leap between rules and putting them together as it suits you, and then saying: It doesnt say anywhere that i explicitly cant do this.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baktru wrote:
No your Cover Save is 2+ as you cannot have better than that, page 19, Maximum Save.

I am firmly with DeathReaper here.

The rules are clear enough.

1) A ruin gives me a 4+ Cover Save if I am 25% obscured by it.
2) Area Terrain, which I also happen to be in has three effects:
2a) Just for being in the terrain I have a 5+ Cover Save. I won't use it though, as I have a better one from the ruin.
2b) I'm in difficult terrain, which doesn't matter right now as I'm not moving.
2c) If you GtG in Area Terrain, you get a +2 to the Cover Save rather than the usual +1.

So my cover save is 4+ because the wall is in the way, I get +2 for going to ground whilst in area terrain, hence the save is 2+.

Quick question, are you using the cover save from the ruin or the cover save from area terrain ?

The way I read it you would get a 2+c RAW, but HIWPI I just ask my opponent and go with whatever they want.

Well of course. I am looking at the applicable rules and applying them.

The ruin is in the way and is granting me a 4+ Cover save.
I happen to be in area terrain as well, so I also have a 5+ Cover Save.
I am explicitly told to use my best save, the 4+.
I go to ground for which I would get +1 for 3+.
Being IN Area Terrain changes the modifier for GtG to +2, so the Saving throw is now 2+.

If the rule said the +2 applies only to the Cover Save from Area Terrain, fine. But it doesn't.

Ok so you are not using cover save from ruins, not the cover save from area terrain. But BOTH, thats nice :-)

you dont have to explain what it says in the book, i am quite aware.

Next question: why does it not say under go to ground paragraf, that if you go to ground in area terrain you get a +2 instead of +1. It does however say that when you read the rule about Area Terrain ?

Obviously because this is a property of the area terrain. Models that Go to ground in. etc.

Just as you will find the same rule in the bit about Battlefield Debris.

And clearly I was using the best available save, from the ruin wall.


Let's invent a new type of terrain for the sake of argument. Let's call it Baktru Terrain. And lets have rules for it too!

Baktru terrain is always difficult terrain. Models in Baktru Terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured. Models that Go to Ground in Baktru Terrain gain +1 to their Toughness until the end of the turn.

Now Bob the Space Marine is in Baktru terrain. Herman is trying to shoot Bob with a Lascannon, however Bob is at least 25% obscured by an intervening wall. Still, Bob prefers not to disappear in a flash of light and Goes to Ground.

What is now Bob's Cover Save? And what is his Toughness?

Best available save, from the ruin wall.
And what bonus to that save do you get, if you choose to go to ground ? (the answer is +1)

Bob would probably feel a little bit cheated, if he chooses to go to ground, as the wound from the lascannon has been rolled for. So the +1 to toughness would really not come into play. When your opponent ask you what your models toughness is so he knows what he needs to roll for a wound, you cannot answer him with a "well man that depends on what you roll, if its a 1, im not gonna go to ground, but if its higher im going to ground".

There is a certain order you do things in when playing Warhammer 40K, if you choose to disregard that order, you are not playing Warhammer 40K with the ruleset provided by Games Workshop anymore, and you should probably discuss matters of 40K rules elsewhere.

It comes into play when determining instant death.

Well hardly think that was the situation he had in mind, but true.

I think it was exactly the situation they were thinking of, given they mentioned SM so T4, T5 with this +1T bonus.

It still ignores that the rules for area terrain give a flat +2 bonus to your cover save; it is silent on whas happens if you have more than one cover save

fossing wrote:
Ok so you are not using cover save from ruins, not the cover save from area terrain. But BOTH, thats nice :-)

A bonus is not a save. Gaining the bonus for going to ground in area terrain after picking the best save you have available is not using two saves. Saying it is is simply wrong. because a bonus is not a save.

There is literally nothing in the book telling you can not use the permission you have to gain the +2 bonus to any cover save you have permission to use. As permission is granted, and not denied by anything: RAW, it ends up being a 2+ save,

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I think it was exactly the situation they were thinking of, given they mentioned SM so T4, T5 with this +1T bonus.

"They" is in fact Baktru, that just invented an example for the sake of argument, i took advantage of his mistake in understanding when you choose to go to ground, he was unaware that you choose to go to ground after wounds have been rolled for, and therefore nullifying the bonus to bob the space marines toughness. As far as i can tell with the information i have on my hand, Bob is a regular space marine with one wound, he really doesnt care about instant death special rule, he only have 1 wound to throw around with.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It still ignores that the rules for area terrain give a flat +2 bonus to your cover save; it is silent on whas happens if you have more than one cover save

I does not have to tell you what happens if you have more than one cover save, as stated on page 19:

",a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but has the advantage of always using the best available save"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:

fossing wrote:
Ok so you are not using cover save from ruins, not the cover save from area terrain. But BOTH, thats nice :-)

A bonus is not a save. Gaining the bonus for going to ground in area terrain after picking the best save you have available is not using two saves. Saying it is is simply wrong. because a bonus is not a save.

Oh really a bonus is not a save.. No a bonus is an advantage to your save...

cryhavok wrote:
There is literally nothing in the book telling you can not use the permission you have to gain the +2 bonus to any cover save you have permission to use. As permission is granted, and not denied by anything: RAW, it ends up being a 2+ save,

Read the area terrain paragraf again on page 91 again then. the word "any" is never used. Permission is in fact not granted.

Whether or not the word any is used is irrelevant. Their cover save is referenced, it does not specify that it only applies to your cover save from area terrain so anything that fits the definition of their cover save is fine.

In fact including the word any would add a whole lot of words and no meaning to the sentence as it would have to say something like "any cover save to which they are entitled". Clunky long and unnecessary as RAW "their cover save" means the same thing.

Fossing - erm, a T4 space marine gains no benefti from +1T against a lascannon, so the only logical conclusion is that they ment instant death. Not being obtuse and all.

You missed thepoint: it gives you +2 to your cover save. Not to your area terrain cover save. So, given you have no rules support to claim that the bonus ONLY applies to the area terrain cover save - please provide some.

This whole "their cover save" argument is silly. It's a bit of a logical leap to assume simply because it came after the line that says they get a 5+ cover save, that it refers to that cover save alone, rather than the more general "their cover save" meaning the one they are currently using.

Also, since we're using thought experiments as straw man arguments, how's this one:
Unit A is in area terrain (a forest or something) and has Stealth.
Unit B ignores cover saves granted by area terrain and shoots at Unit A.
Unit A goes to ground, what is Unit A's cover save?

I'd say a 4+, +1 from stealth and +2 from going to ground.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fossing - erm, a T4 space marine gains no benefti from +1T against a lascannon, so the only logical conclusion is that they ment instant death. Not being obtuse and all.

Yes cause he only has 1 wound, i just pointed that out. If he had more than 1 wound he would indeed gain a benifit, as a lascannon is only strenght 9. Dont know where you draw your logical conclusions from.

You guys are reading the sentence about going to ground in area terrain out of context, if you factor in the context, you can clearly see that it is a posibility that they are talking about the cover save they just mentioned, in the sentence before.
That said i also see that it might be a posibility that they are taking about a cover save, as in any cover saves. I just find it highly unlikely that it is so, factoring in the relative power of a 2+ save and a number of other things that have allready been given voice in this discussion and several before.
And this is pretty much where the discussion stands, because there is no FAQ out about this issue. When there is


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
This whole "their cover save" argument is silly. It's a bit of a logical leap to assume simply because it came after the line that says they get a 5+ cover save, that it refers to that cover save alone, rather than the more general "their cover save" meaning the one they are currently using.

And its not a logical leap to assume that it doesnt ? Well i think so, and untill a FAQ is out, i probably wont be convinced otherwise, unless someone here holds a phd in English grammar.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
ignores cover saves granted by area terrain

Im trying to find a weapon or unit that have this special rule, but cant seem to find it.

Space Marine Bob's toughness does matter as he may very well survive the shot on a 3+ Cover from the ruin and going to ground, and be assaulted the same turn for instance.

I just wanted to replace the 3rd rule by something different.

Either way we're clearly not going to agree on this, which is odd as I think this is, for once, not a case of sloppy rules-writing (although the way the +2 is phrased is still.. odd.) but rather cut and dry.

I couldn't find weapons that only disregard area based cover saves as well, but couldn't find any.

Still though, if there was such a weapon and a unit went GtG in Area terrain, their Save would be 5+ against it.

The weapon ignores area terrain cover save, you have stealth and you go to ground, thats a straight up 5+ right there.

Its like the enemy that is getting shot is saying: hey tau riptide with cool new gun, i dont care what your weapon does, because before you remove my save im just gonna grab the benefits that the save provides and then you can take it.
Tau Riptide breaks down crying because he doesnt think thats fair!

 PrinceRaven wrote:
This whole "their cover save" argument is silly. It's a bit of a logical leap to assume simply because it came after the line that says they get a 5+ cover save, that it refers to that cover save alone, rather than the more general "their cover save" meaning the one they are currently using.

Also, since we're using thought experiments as straw man arguments, how's this one:
Unit A is in area terrain (a forest or something) and has Stealth.
Unit B ignores cover saves granted by area terrain and shoots at Unit A.
Unit A goes to ground, what is Unit A's cover save?

I'd say a 4+, +1 from stealth and +2 from going to ground.

I may be wrong on this, and dont have my book close.

But due to the order things are done is I don't think any of the above example gets any save? First you do multiplication/division, then addition/subtraction, then I thought nullification.... but maybe that's my own invention.


I guess my reading on it is different. Stealth gives you cover saves even when you have none. But template weapons ignore cover saves, regardless of what they are or are modified to be.

I've seen this pop up a few times now and I still feel that the wording of +2 to cover save confers, if you draw line of sight through a Ruin, a 2+ Cover save to a model gone to ground in area terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Well to be purely RAW here going to ground in area terrain makes your cover save worse.

just going to ground adds 1 to your cover saving throw. so you add 1 to the roll of your dice.
stealth improves the save by 1
shroud improves the save by 2
G2G in area terrain gets +2 to the cover save.

so just remind the guy pulling this that 5+2=7, or 4+2 equals 6 (pg 2) and offer your calculator if he wants to check your math.

This is not true at all, a 4+ cover save -2 to the cover save, is a 6+ cover save. With a 4+ cover save, +2 results in a 2+ cover save. Cover saves work in reverse math as per page 18

"Models in a unit that has gone to ground lmmediately receive +1 to their cover saving throws."
and
"Models that are not currently in a position that would give them a cover save can still Go to Ground by diving to the floor (or some other evasion technique) and receive a 6+ cover save."

establish that if you have a cover save of - (The worst possible value) and you add one to that it becomes a 6 working in the opposite direction of normal math.

But then you're assuming gtg in area terrain was designed to be a benefit. pg 18 has nothing about reverse math. As we saw from my examples, the first 3 either improved the save, or added to the throw, g2g in area terrain did not. so RAW and basic math says g2g in area terrain makes your save worse. pg 2 modifiers, can modify positively or negatively by adding to it (+2)

sirlynchmob wrote:
But then you're assuming gtg in area terrain was designed to be a benefit. pg 18 has nothing about reverse math. As we saw from my examples, the first 3 either improved the save, or added to the throw, g2g in area terrain did not. so RAW and basic math says g2g in area terrain makes your save worse. pg 2 modifiers, can modify positively or negatively by adding to it (+2)

Did you miss my earlier post with the breakdown of why math works in reverse for saves?

Basically Page 16 tells us that the lower the number of a save the better it is. Adding one is making something better by one, so you have to lower the save value to make the save better and therefore adding two to a 5+ save makes it 3+ for saves.

"If a model can benefit fiom different types of cover, for example, being behind a bloodthorn hedge (6+ cover save) and a barricade (4+). the model uses the best covel save available(in this case 4+)" (19)

This establishes that a 6+ is worse than a 4+ save (4+ is the best when given a value of 4 and 6, so lower is better for saves).

Page 19 also tells us that a +1 lowers the save value by 1

"Some models gain additional benefits from 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+." (19)

Increasing a save makes it lower, a +2 is an increase. Improved beyond would be a 1+ or 0+ etc. Clear rules that tell you that when you get a +1 you lower the save value.

Click my name in this post to take you to the explanation.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 2 post, Click "DeathReaper" in this box to show it.

fossing wrote:
And its not a logical leap to assume that it doesnt ? Well i think so, and untill a FAQ is out, i probably wont be convinced otherwise, unless someone here holds a phd in English grammar.

I can get a Dr of English to look this line over if you like, my doctorate is in biology, but I'm having dinner with some Doctors of English on Saturday.

Oh yay, this one again.

What Death Reaper and the other pro 2+ side seem to keep missing is a couple of points.

1) You are only given permission to use the best save from all that are available, which would be the wall. After this step is done all other saves are ignored.

2) While there are similarities to Stealth and Shrouded, there are a few differences. S&S both specifically state they apply to all cover saves (plural), they are also a USR and not a save granted by terrain and while they grant a save they also give express permission to be used with each other.

Where as Area Terrain is stated only under the rules for taking a Area Terrain cover save, does not give express permission to be used with other cover saves (despite of what the Pro 2+ side would have you believe) and in its wording it only states cover save (singular).

Aside from all these pesky rules its perfectly acceptable to have a 2+ cover save.....if you GtG behind a Defense Line.

 Bausk wrote:
Oh yay, this one again.

What Death Reaper and the other pro 2+ side seem to keep missing is a couple of points.

I don't think anyone is missing them. I simply think they disagree. This isn't a matter of misunderstanding as far as I can tell, simply alternate interpretation of a vague rule. Although I am going to present a counterpoint I think you probably already understand what I am going to say and disagree with it, whcih is the same but in reverse.

 Bausk wrote:

1) You are only given permission to use the best save from all that are available, which would be the wall. After this step is done all other saves are ignored.

Agreed. Other saves, but not modifiers.

 Bausk wrote:

2) While there are similarities to Stealth and Shrouded, there are a few differences. S&S both specifically state they apply to all cover saves (plural), they are also a USR and not a save granted by terrain and while they grant a save they also give express permission to be used with each other.

Don't see the relevance of this.

 Bausk wrote:

Where as Area Terrain is stated only under the rules for taking a Area Terrain cover save, does not give express permission to be used with other cover saves (despite of what the Pro 2+ side would have you believe) and in its wording it only states cover save (singular).

It does not give express permission to be used with the area terrain cover save. It only gives express permission to be used with "their cover save", which in this case is granted by the wall per your point 1. Thus 2+c. I see no where any rule or implication that rules can only be used along with the sections in which they are presented, this would lead to a lot of broken games of 40k and is simply not how the rules work.

Because of all these pesky rules its perfectly acceptable to have a 2+ cover save.....just like if you GtG behind a Defense Line.

Drager wrote:

I don't think anyone is missing them. I simply think they disagree. This isn't a matter of misunderstanding as far as I can tell, simply alternate interpretation of a vague rule. Although I am going to present a counterpoint I think you probably already understand what I am going to say and disagree with it, whcih is the same but in reverse.

 Bausk wrote:

1) You are only given permission to use the best save from all that are available, which would be the wall. After this step is done all other saves are ignored.

Agreed. Other saves, but not modifiers.

 Bausk wrote:

2) While there are similarities to Stealth and Shrouded, there are a few differences. S&S both specifically state they apply to all cover saves (plural), they are also a USR and not a save granted by terrain and while they grant a save they also give express permission to be used with each other.

Don't see the relevance of this.

 Bausk wrote:

Where as Area Terrain is stated only under the rules for taking a Area Terrain cover save, does not give express permission to be used with other cover saves (despite of what the Pro 2+ side would have you believe) and in its wording it only states cover save (singular).

It does not give express permission to be used with the area terrain cover save. It only gives express permission to be used with "their cover save", which in this case is granted by the wall per your point 1. Thus 2+c. I see no where any rule or implication that rules can only be used along with the sections in which they are presented, this would lead to a lot of broken games of 40k and is simply not how the rules work.

Other saves include their rules, as the modifier is only granted under a saves rules (just like a Defense Line, funny that) if you're not using that save then you don't use its rules. Modifiers from external sources such as Stealth and Shrouded give permission to be used with ANY cover save. The Area Terrains modifier is only granted under its rules, in the same sentence as the cover save it grants and uses a singular wording.

It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself. Which at this point, if you are reading the Area Terrain rules, 'their Cover Save' is the cover save you get from the cover save you have chosen to use from a previous step in the shooting process. Which in this case is the Area Terrain cover save, because you're reading the area terrain rules. See how important following the correct process is as opposed to jumping from one save to another AFTER you have already chosen the best from all available.

Name a single example where taking one Saves rules only, to the exclusion of other saves rules that are available, would break the game and perhaps I'd agree with you. But the BRB is very black and white, you follow its steps though its process without doubling back over other rules that are not needed (in the case of looking at another saves rules when you are not using it as your saving throw) or having fore knowledge of said moot rules.

I would rip the base off of that ruin to not have to deal with it again.

Imo, you start the game defining if a piece of scenery is either area terrain or ruins, not both. A player trying to get a 2+ save behind a ruin sounds like a douche move to me. Just take a dang aegis defence line.

yukondal wrote:
Imo, you start the game defining if a piece of scenery is either area terrain or ruins, not both.

Page 98, Ruins with bases section disagrees with your assessment.

The ruin is a ruin, but if it has a base, the base is area terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

yukondal wrote:
Imo, you start the game defining if a piece of scenery is either area terrain or ruins, not both.

Page 98, Ruins with bases section disagrees with your assessment.

The ruin is a ruin, but if it has a base, the base is area terrain.

You dont seriously think that you need to point that out for him, do you ?

I did not think that you could Add saves together. You just use the best save that is available to you. In this case it would be 3+ what ever way.

Area terrain + going to ground (5 - 2) = 3+ cover save

OR

Ruins + going to ground (4 - 1) = 3+ cover save

That's just the way Me and my friends play. I cant honestly fined anything to Support a cover saves stacking or Not stacking.

It's not that cover saves stack (they don't) it's that GTG in area terrain adds 2 to your cover save. It doesn't specify an area terrain save so if you're eligible for a Ruins save why can the +2 not apply?

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not that cover saves stack (they don't) it's that GTG in area terrain adds 2 to your cover save. It doesn't specify an area terrain save so if you're eligible for a Ruins save why can the +2 not apply?

What you say makes sense, but only in a RAR of sorts. But I really don't think that the rules are written to allow that. I think what is written on Page 98 is just a simple fact of if I'm looking at you from the open side of that ruin and your standing on the Base board you get area terrain (5+). If I'm looking at you from the closed side of that ruin then you get a save as if you are in a ruin (4+). And they are simply trying to get over the fact that people will claim to have a Ruin save. because they are standing on that terrain piece.

I don't know how better to explain that without cracking open MS paint and trying to draw a Picture to explain it better but hopefully you understand what I'm saying on that. If its correct or not I don't know, its just as I play it. But being as the consensus is 60% of a 2+ save. I think I need to hang around to see what the conclusion will be if any.

I'm not arguing for one thing or the other here - I couldn't care less.
I'm just explaining the issue because it seemed like you didn't understand it.

A further problem is that on Page 91, ruins are listed as area terrain, which further confuses the matter (First column, 2nd para of Area Terrain, lines 6 & 7).

So an area enclosed by ruins, can be classed as area terrain (5+) rather than ruins (4+).

The last time this cropped up I think it was a 5 to 4 in favour of the 2+ save.

Cheers

Andrew

fossing wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

yukondal wrote:
Imo, you start the game defining if a piece of scenery is either area terrain or ruins, not both.

Page 98, Ruins with bases section disagrees with your assessment.

The ruin is a ruin, but if it has a base, the base is area terrain.

You dont seriously think that you need to point that out for him, do you ?

Considering what he wrote, which is a gross violation of the rules, Yes I did "seriously think that [I] need[ed] to point that out for him"

It seems he needed to be pointed to the page that told him how what he stated was incorrect.

 AndrewC wrote:
A further problem is that on Page 91, ruins are listed as area terrain, which further confuses the matter (First column, 2nd para of Area Terrain, lines 6 & 7).

So an area enclosed by ruins, can be classed as area terrain (5+) rather than ruins (4+).

This is incorrect, as the more specific ruins rules start on page 98, list ruins as a 4+ cover save if you are obscured by the ruin itself.

 DeathReaper wrote:

This is incorrect, as the more specific ruins rules start on page 98, list ruins as a 4+ cover save if you are obscured by the ruin itself.

Which while being true, is not necessarily the whole picture. Can you deny that P91 lists ruins as area terrain?

Cheers

Andrew

P91 does list ruins as an example of area terrain, that is 100% correct.

However Page 98 is more specific than P91 and they explain that the base of a ruin is Area terrain (5+ cover save) and the ruin itself confers a 4+ cover save.

Right, so we have two seperate rules which lists identical items as two different values. And you don't see any possibility for confusion? Because I can.

And, as was pointed out to me a while ago, the specific>general appears to have disappeared in this version (or at least I can find no mention of it)

It needs an FaQ, or at least both players to discuss what they expect terrain to be before the game.

There are two seperate, valid, interpretations supported by the rules, and I admit my initial posting, in this thread, was wrong to posit one view while excluding the other.

Cheers

Andrew

To me the solution is simple a matter of accepting the fact the going to ground rules specifically states it is a +1 to the cover saving throw. The very same page clearly defines what a saving throw is, though for some reason in the armor saving throw section. It is the act of rolling a D6 and comparing it to a target save characteristic.

A bonus in this case would not be added to the target value, but added to the result of the dice. Doing it that way means the way it is written, +1/+2, makes perfect sense for what is clearly meant to be a bonus. In this case, and almost all others, a higher end result on the dice is a good thing.

That being said I don't mind the 'reverse math' interpretation, as it comes to the same outcome through logical arguments. It is logical to assume this is meant to be a bonus. It is logical to argue that a bonus to a character is a negative. It is then logical to conclude that the + in this case is a typo, and it is meant to be -. The only problem is logic doesn't always win when it comes to warhammer rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This also allows a good timing argument to be had and it goes like this:

Unit A is behind a ruin with a base.
They goes to ground and evoke the +2 bonus to their cover saving throws
Until they meet the requirements needed to lose that bonus, it is passively active
Only now are they actually forced to chose which cover type save characteristic they are rolling against
They roll D6+2 vs 4 to see how many wounds where unsuccessfully saved

Effectively 2+

Jinx, that is not quite right, GtG adds +1 to their cover saving throws. Plural.

Area terrain adds +2 to their cover save. Singular.

So if you have multiple cover saves available, which one gets the +2 bonus?

There is inference on both sides as to which, the 2+ side, infers the +2 to the any/final save. the 3+ side infers that the +2 only applies to the area terrain cover save, as that is where it is mentioned.

Cheers

Andrew

Singular or plural doesn't matter as a model can only ever take 1 cover save.

Until a third option is added, I refuse to vote. My group already plays that every level of ruins count as area terrain with the exception of the g2g bonus (so a model in plain site right on top of a ruin will have a 5+ cover save). This also means that if a ruin does not hae a base but a model is within the footprint they have a 5+ cover save (nobody cleaned up the debris). We also generally play no cover from the base if outside the footprint. Unfortunately, nobody has tried going to ground while in area terrain and obscured by the ruin.

Andrew,

Then explain to be the part that comes next, which states "rather than +1." If we go to page 18 we see the only +1 that going to ground grants is to "Cover Saving Throws." The +2 simply replaces the +1 and doesn't change anything else in the formatting of that section. Therefore it now reads +2 to cover saving throws.

I have no reason to think they are talking about anything but the saving throw when they state saving throws in the Going To Ground rules.

Bad formatting, hell yeah, but when is that something new. I am just glad that they are extra careful in other sections to make it less of an issue. "Improved by 1" is far better then +1 when it comes to defining rules, particularly when you have a system where addition doesn't always mean better. If they had used that same formatting here, well we would still have the same argument but at least we wouldn't have 'saving throws' and 'save characteristic' both shortened down to save!

An excellent point JinxDragon. have a cookie!

JinxDragon wrote:
To me the solution is simple a matter of accepting the fact the going to ground rules specifically states it is a +1 to the cover saving throw. The very same page clearly defines what a saving throw is, though for some reason in the armor saving throw section. It is the act of rolling a D6 and comparing it to a target save characteristic.

A bonus in this case would not be added to the target value, but added to the result of the dice.

Yea, that is not correct at all because of the situation that I posted earlier.

It literally says that a unit with no cover save (Cover save -) goes to ground it gets the benefit of a 6+ cover save.

You are not adding one to the Die, as even with a 6 on the die you can never roll a -

 AndrewC wrote:
Right, so we have two seperate rules which lists identical items as two different values. And you don't see any possibility for confusion? Because I can.

And, as was pointed out to me a while ago, the specific>general appears to have disappeared in this version (or at least I can find no mention of it)

Not at all. the Specific vs General is a function of the permissive ruleset. It does mention basic Vs Advanced, and in this case the basic rule would be the example that ruins are area terrain, and the advanced rules for Ruins are on Page 98...

Actually Death, I think thats exactly why the second bullet point exists.

It had already been established that 'improve by 1' when applied to - save gives a save result of 6+. Therefore the second bulletin point can either mean one or two things. It can either be a rule in and of itself, or it can be a reminder of the already established process for improving saves.

If it is a reminder, then why is it in it's own bullet point?
Why have bullet points at all, seeing it is the same rule as the first bullet point and there is only two of them?
Why does it lack terminology that you find in other reminders?
Why does it contains the words 'can still Go to Ground' as if it is giving you directly giving you permission outside of cover?

Take a look at the wording in the stealth rule when applied to open ground for comparison. It does puts forth that this would mean you are rolling against 6+. It uses words like "note that this means..." which informs us that this is a reminder of what would normally happen in those situations.

The going to ground rules are clearly giving you a choice, depending on the situation you are in. If you are in cover then your saving throw is d6+1. If you are not in cover you still have permission to use this rule, but instead of a d6+1 saving throw you gain a 6+ save characteristic. Reading it like that allows it to be applied to the situation, as written, without having you go through logical arguments and referring half a dozen paragraphs on other pages to get to the same point.

Also: Why do they use the term they just explained, saving throw, if they meant save characteristic?

"hWy does it contains the word 'can still Go to Ground' as if it is giving you permission outside of cover? "

Because it is reminding you that you can improve a - cover save to a 6+.

This is because adding 1 to - means nothing.

"Also: Why do they use the word saving throw if they didn't mean saving throw?"

the mean Saving throw, as in the value of said Saving Throw...

Why does this paragraph exist under it's own bullet point if it is just an extension of the rule above it, aka a reminder?
By extension, why are we seeing bullet points at all if they are only trying to put forth one possible outcome of going to ground?

I agree that a d6+1 vs - would be impossible, but if we read the second paragraph as part of the rules then it isn't an issue. We won't need some long logical argument to grant us permission to rewrite the +1 as a -1. This paragraph is already giving us the option of taking the going to ground bonus as a 6+ save outright. It has the added advantage that we don't need to change any of the going to ground rules in order to do it.

The saving throw value is defined by rolling a D6 which is then comparing it to an already existing save characteristic. If I was to modify a saving throw, I would be modifying the results of the dice. In such case the format of +1 makes perfect sense and this is the format used within the going to ground rules. In your case we have to make a logical argument to give us pseudo-permission to rewrite the book to make that +1 into -1 to apply it to something they didn't even mention in the going to ground rules, the save characteristic.

I have occam's razor here, want me to apply it to both arguments?

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

Drager wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

I ment paragraph, my bad. It's granted permission to use the +2 on the 5+ from the Area Terrain as its in the same paragraph under the Rule listing for Area Terrain.

Happyjew wrote:Until a third option is added, I refuse to vote. My group already plays that every level of ruins count as area terrain with the exception of the g2g bonus (so a model in plain site right on top of a ruin will have a 5+ cover save). This also means that if a ruin does not hae a base but a model is within the footprint they have a 5+ cover save (nobody cleaned up the debris). We also generally play no cover from the base if outside the footprint. Unfortunately, nobody has tried going to ground while in area terrain and obscured by the ruin.

Well your group is not playing by the rules, but by their own house rules, which are only relevant in your gaming group, not on this forum.

fossing wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
This whole "their cover save" argument is silly. It's a bit of a logical leap to assume simply because it came after the line that says they get a 5+ cover save, that it refers to that cover save alone, rather than the more general "their cover save" meaning the one they are currently using.

And its not a logical leap to assume that it doesnt ? Well i think so, and untill a FAQ is out, i probably wont be convinced otherwise, unless someone here holds a phd in English grammar.

I'm not saying it isn't, nearly all reasoning requires making a logical leap at one point or another, I'm just saying that it's more of a leap to assume the sentence means "their cover save granted by area terrain" than simply "their cover save" which is what the rule actually states. When using deductive reasoning, it is generally the smallest leap that we take. for example: "There are no native Irish snakes today, this is because any on the landmass moved to England before it separated from Ireland or died out in the latest ice age" is a more logical line of reasoning than "There are no native Irish snakes today, this is because St. Patrick chased them all out Ireland while he was offing the dragons."

fossing wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
ignores cover saves granted by area terrain

Im trying to find a weapon or unit that have this special rule, but cant seem to find it.

That was a joke in reference to straw marine Bob.

Bausk wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

I ment paragraph, my bad. It's granted permission to use the +2 on the 5+ from the Area Terrain as its in the same paragraph under the Rule listing for Area Terrain.

You mean the area terrain rules? Of course it's in the same paragraph as the cover save for area terrain, it's a rule about area terrain. Also in said paragraph is "Area Terrain is always difficult terrain" does this have any bearing on the rule?

 Bausk wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

I ment paragraph, my bad. It's granted permission to use the +2 on the 5+ from the Area Terrain as its in the same paragraph under the Rule listing for Area Terrain.

No, it grants permission to get +2 instead of +1. There is nothing stating that is ONLY to the cover save granted by area terrain - that is your inference.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Until a third option is added, I refuse to vote. My group already plays that every level of ruins count as area terrain with the exception of the g2g bonus (so a model in plain site right on top of a ruin will have a 5+ cover save). This also means that if a ruin does not hae a base but a model is within the footprint they have a 5+ cover save (nobody cleaned up the debris). We also generally play no cover from the base if outside the footprint. Unfortunately, nobody has tried going to ground while in area terrain and obscured by the ruin.

Well your group is not playing by the rules, but by their own house rules, which are only relevant in your gaming group, not on this forum.

Never said we were playing by the rules. In fact I never said my stance was a RAW one (I tried to make it clear that it was HIPI). And sometimes, the way people actually play it is just as important as what the rule actually says.

Being in the same paragraph is implicit, not explicit, permission. The explicit permission is to improve "their cover save" it does not state this cover save or their cover save provided by area terrain.

Their cover save means the one they are using when the time comes to save wounds.

When determining (cover) saves, if you have multiple, you are instructed to use the best (in case of saves, the lowest numerical value).

If someone is in area terrain but obscured by ruins, they get both a 5+ and a 4+ cover save.

The best is obviously the 4+ (not it is lower numerically), so that is the one they will use, i.e. _their_ cover save.

GtG improves that.

 Shandara wrote:
Their cover save means the one they are using when the time comes to save wounds.

When determining (cover) saves, if you have multiple, you are instructed to use the best (in case of saves, the lowest numerical value).

If someone is in area terrain but obscured by ruins, they get both a 5+ and a 4+ cover save.

The best is obviously the 4+ (not it is lower numerically), so that is the one they will use, i.e. _their_ cover save.

GtG improves that.

Agreed

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

I ment paragraph, my bad. It's granted permission to use the +2 on the 5+ from the Area Terrain as its in the same paragraph under the Rule listing for Area Terrain.

No, it grants permission to get +2 instead of +1. There is nothing stating that is ONLY to the cover save granted by area terrain - that is your inference.

In context that was in response to someone that asked 'where is there permission given for it to be applied to the Area Terrain cover save'. However as its in the rules for Area Terrain if we read it black and white like the rule book reads it is a singular phrasing because your only looking at one Cover Save at that point, the Area Terrain one. Its a larger and more stretched leap of logic to presume it applies to what ever cover save you use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:
Being in the same paragraph is implicit, not explicit, permission. The explicit permission is to improve "their cover save" it does not state this cover save or their cover save provided by area terrain.

As I've said, its explicit as its under a single rule listing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

jazzpaintball wrote:
The GtG rule in area terrain says that you get +2 in area terrain. Does this apply to another cover save? or only the 5+ area terrain save?

The GTG in area terrain rule actually says "Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." (91)

So if a model is in area terrain and that model GTG it receives +2 to its cover save.

A model can have more than one cover save.

If you are sufficiently obscured by a ruin you have a 4+ cover save, and if you are also in area terrain and go to ground you get a +2 to the cover save. A 2+ cover save is possible in this instance.

This is how I've always interpretted it.

 Bausk wrote:
As I've said, its explicit as its under a single rule listing.

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

I'm not sure where you're getting this 1 rule thing here, because the way I read you've got 3 distinct rules explaining different aspects of area terrain.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
As I've said, its explicit as its under a single rule listing.

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

I'm not sure where you're getting this 1 rule thing here, because the way I read you've got 3 distinct rules explaining different aspects of area terrain.

One rule listing (something listed or included in a list). As in the rules for Area Terrain.

 Bausk wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

I ment paragraph, my bad. It's granted permission to use the +2 on the 5+ from the Area Terrain as its in the same paragraph under the Rule listing for Area Terrain.

No, it grants permission to get +2 instead of +1. There is nothing stating that is ONLY to the cover save granted by area terrain - that is your inference.

In context that was in response to someone that asked 'where is there permission given for it to be applied to the Area Terrain cover save'. However as its in the rules for Area Terrain if we read it black and white like the rule book reads it is a singular phrasing because your only looking at one Cover Save at that point, the Area Terrain one. Its a larger and more stretched leap of logic to presume it applies to what ever cover save you use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:
Being in the same paragraph is implicit, not explicit, permission. The explicit permission is to improve "their cover save" it does not state this cover save or their cover save provided by area terrain.

As I've said, its explicit as its under a single rule listing.

That is implicit,as in implied by context, not explicit as in stated permission. The explicit permission is for use with "their cover save", which is whatever cover save they are using, not any particular one.

Bausk wrote:

As I've said, its explicit as its under a single rule listing.

Wrong,t hat is at best *implicit*

Explicit would be "the cover save granted by area terrain is improved by +2". That is explicit
Implicit is you inferring that, because the rule apppears under the rules for Area terrain that any reference to "cover save" may only apply to the cover save granted by cover save. However "their" cover save is, explicitly "their" save used at the time they make a cover save, meaning it is, explicitly, whatever value "their" save is that gets improved.

You are taking your inference and overriding an explicit referent, which is unsafe. In otherwords, you have created a restriction where none exists

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In otherwords, you have created a restriction where none exists

Except that little rule for only using one Save. If you are using one save, what rules would you use for it? I'd like to think that most people would use the rules for that save and not for others, but it seems people like to mix and match these rules to gain a benefit. If there was a rule giving permission to mix saves and/or their rules than yes, it would be implicit. But as there is not, its an explicit instruction as its under the single saves rule listing. Meaning the fact that it says 'their' rather than 'the Area Terrain' Cover save is irrelevant.

 Bausk wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In otherwords, you have created a restriction where none exists

Except that little rule for only using one Save. If you are using one save, what rules would you use for it? I'd like to think that most people would use the rules for that save and not for others, but it seems people like to mix and match these rules to gain a benefit. If there was a rule giving permission to mix saves and/or their rules than yes, it would be implicit. But as there is not, its an explicit instruction as its under the single saves rule listing. Meaning the fact that it says 'their' rather than 'the Area Terrain' Cover save is irrelevant.

This assumes that the rule for the bonus, and the rule for the save are the same rule. Something you have yet to prove. If they are not the same rule, your argument falls apart. Considering they are different sentences talking about different situations (one talks about a save for being somewhere, the other talks about a modifier for doing something), I find it hard to read it as one rule.

 Bausk wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In otherwords, you have created a restriction where none exists

Except that little rule for only using one Save. If you are using one save, what rules would you use for it? I'd like to think that most people would use the rules for that save and not for others, but it seems people like to mix and match these rules to gain a benefit. If there was a rule giving permission to mix saves and/or their rules than yes, it would be implicit. But as there is not, its an explicit instruction as its under the single saves rule listing. Meaning the fact that it says 'their' rather than 'the Area Terrain' Cover save is irrelevant.

Except you don't choose which set of rules that include a cover save to use, you choose which cover save to use, otherwise you wouldn't be able to add stealth and shrouded to your cover save since they are sets of rules that include a cover save. Lets say you have a Daemon(s) of Nurlge behind a barbed fence and Night Fighting is in effect, a unit of Marines is 20 inches away and shoots at your unit, after rolling to hit and wound, you choose to go to ground. To determine the cover save of your unit you are now using the rules for Tanglewire/razor wire, Daemon of Nurgle/Shrouded, Night Fighting/Stealth, and Go to Ground to figure out your cover save. "a model only ever gets to make one saving throw." means you can only ever roll your save once, not that you use only set of rules to figure out what that save is.

cryhavok wrote:
This assumes that the rule for the bonus, and the rule for the save are the same rule. Something you have yet to prove. If they are not the same rule, your argument falls apart. Considering they are different sentences talking about different situations (one talks about a save for being somewhere, the other talks about a modifier for doing something), I find it hard to read it as one rule.

Not quite, they are the same rule listing.

There are only two reasons you would read the rule listing for Area Terrain under the rule process.

1) If you are moving though it in any way.

2) If you are taking it as your Saving Throw. Which would also be the only time you would GtG as its an extension of the Cover Save rules.

Talking strictly in a process perspective the only time the GtG +2 bonus would apply is when you are using the Area Terrain Cover Save as your Saving Throw as that is the save you are using. If however you were to use a Wall instead then you would look up the rule listing for the wall and use its rules. You don't then go 'But wait this other saves rules has a bonus that could make this Wall even better' because that would be using the Area Terrains rules for a Wall.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Except you don't choose which set of rules that include a cover save to use, you choose which cover save to use, otherwise you wouldn't be able to add stealth and shrouded to your cover save since they are sets of rules that include a cover save. Lets say you have a Daemon(s) of Nurlge behind a barbed fence and Night Fighting is in effect, a unit of Marines is 20 inches away and shoots at your unit, after rolling to hit and wound, you choose to go to ground. To determine the cover save of your unit you are now using the rules for Tanglewire/razor wire, Daemon of Nurgle/Shrouded, Night Fighting/Stealth, and Go to Ground to figure out your cover save. "a model only ever gets to make one saving throw." means you can only ever roll your save once, not that you use only set of rules to figure out what that save is.

You choose the best save from all available and use its rules to the exclusion of all others as they were discarded from the previous step. Slightly different to what you think I'm saying.
Stealth and Shrouded are universal special rules that specifically state they apply to all cover saves, they are acceptable modifiers as they are modifiers granted by a special rule or wargear. They are not a save in of them selves.

Also missing what I'm saying again. If you are using the best save available, you would be using its rules. You wouldn't be using the Daemon USRs invulnerable save in that instance so you wouldn't even look at its rules. The base save rules (in you example: Tanglewire) would be your saves rules. External modifiers can be applied from special rules and/or wargear (night fighting, camo cloaks etc) as per the rules. Area Terrain is not a special rule, it is both terrain and a cover save. It has a rule under its listing that alters the GtG bonus yes, but it is still not a special rule in of itself.

Why are you using a process perspective? It doesn't apply, nowhere do the rules tell you to do so.

Although even under your own logic there is another reason to look at the area terrain rules, going to ground in area terrain is a reason to look there n and of my itself.

I am using a single save, which is "my" or "their" save, given the grammar required to reference the model.

"Their" save is improved by +2, by GtG in area terrain

Explciit proof that your made up restriction is, in fact, made up.

Bausk: Please enlighten me as to the parts of the rulebook that tell you ignore all rules pertaining to a piece of terrain when using the cover save of a different piece of terrain.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Please enlighten me as to the parts of the rulebook that tell you ignore all rules pertaining to a piece of terrain when using the cover save of a different piece of terrain.

Who is that directed at?

Bausk, from context and history

So has anyone seen this in a tourney and had a TO ruled one way or the other.

The vote is so damn close. A vote to get a school district more money can not even be decided with a vote this close....

jazzpaintball wrote:
So has anyone seen this in a tourney and had a TO ruled one way or the other.

The vote is so damn close. A vote to get a school district more money can not even be decided with a vote this close....

Does it really matter? I mean, TOs generally aren't rules experts, and back when I played competitive card games I had plenty of TOs and even judges make incorrect rulings.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

jazzpaintball wrote:
So has anyone seen this in a tourney and had a TO ruled one way or the other.

The vote is so damn close. A vote to get a school district more money can not even be decided with a vote this close....

Does it really matter? I mean, TOs generally aren't rules experts, and back when I played competitive card games I had plenty of TOs and even judges make incorrect rulings.

Agreed, and I know I have done the same thing.

The problem is that as being a consistent TO, I want to make sure that all of my rulings are correct. That is why I am curious if anyone knew of other TO's rulings. Not that they are right or wrong, but out of curiosity.

NVM not enough coffee yet