Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.