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.

Yeah. I disagree with folks are saying about ruins and 2+ cover. If you are in the base (area) and you are also 25% obscured by the ruin and then proceed to GTG, you receive a 2+ save.

@yodisisray

MCs take cover saves like infantry for the most part. Area terrain only requires that they have a part of their base in terrain for the save, other types of terrain need to cover 25%. Other units provide a 5+ save as if they were infantry, which is crazy.

@LValx

You are free to play it the way you choose of course, but if you read the rules it is pretty clear. This comes up all the time though, as a TO I see it a lot.

There is actually no such thing as a ruin/area terrain. There are pieces of area terrain with a ruin in them (like a building with a base.

However, the +2 only applies to area terrain (defined as a 5+ pg.18) or to an Aegis. Ruins have a 4+ but only provide the normal +1 due to going to ground. Nowhere does it say you get both, but it is super easy to misconstrue that.

Like I said though, if your group plays it that way, run with it. The independent tournament FAQ rules it as a 3+ either way, which is what you would see at Adepticon, WargamesCon, BAO, LVO, Feast of Blades, etc.

 y0disisray wrote:

I thought they got rid of monstrous creatures needing 25% coverage to gain a cover save?

They did....but only with regards to area terrain.

However, we are talking about cover that is not area terrain. In other words, obscurement from ruin walls or other objects in front of an MC. That still requires 25% concealment.

Basically, this is what LValx is talking about. The premise is some ruins on a base. The base is then considered area terrain for the ruins. The MC is in the area terrain and obscured by the ruin walls. If he goes to ground, he gets +2 to cover because he just went to ground in area terrain. However, the ruin walls give him a 4+ cover, which now becomes 2+ cover (with Tzeentch units re-rolling 1's, thus in essence making it a re-rollable 2+ cover).

To me, that is an unintentional loophole in the rules that I don't think they meant to do and borders on gaming the system. Thus, I wouldn't do it unless my opponent is the one doing it or if he insists I take the 2+ cover instead.

 Reecius wrote:
@yodisisray

MCs take cover saves like infantry for the most part. Area terrain only requires that they have a part of their base in terrain for the save, other types of terrain need to cover 25%. Other units provide a 5+ save as if they were infantry, which is crazy.

@LValx

You are free to play it the way you choose of course, but if you read the rules it is pretty clear. This comes up all the time though, as a TO I see it a lot.

There is actually no such thing as a ruin/area terrain. There are pieces of area terrain with a ruin in them (like a building with a base.

However, the +2 only applies to area terrain (defined as a 5+ pg.18) or to an Aegis. Ruins have a 4+ but only provide the normal +1 due to going to ground. Nowhere does it say you get both, but it is super easy to misconstrue that.

Like I said though, if your group plays it that way, run with it. The independent tournament FAQ rules it as a 3+ either way, which is what you would see at Adepticon, WargamesCon, BAO, LVO, Feast of Blades, etc.

It's an unclear rule, I think. Last year at NOVA I had opponents play it that way and I did as well. I'm going to ask a few TOs just to get a better idea.

Sorry if my tone was at all combative!

Not combative at all, no worries.

I just get asked this one all the time at tournaments. And, if you look at Jy2's response right after mine, it appears he reads the rule the same way you do, haha! It is unclear, I agree.

on page 19 it declares that you use the best save possible, assuming you have the ruins and area terrain combo your options are:

ruins 4+
area terrain 5+

the book forces you to choose the Ruin save everytime, which means you are not claiming area terrain save

deciding to go ground is a modifier to that save not the save itself

To get that 2+ you have to be able to claim the ruins AND say you are claiming area. The book doesn't give that option, instead forces you to automatically claim the best, which is ruins. Since ruin terrain is not area terrain it would mean that you grab 3+ cover

At least that is how I read it

 z3n1st wrote:
on page 19 it declares that you use the best save possible, assuming you have the ruins and area terrain combo your options are:

ruins 4+
area terrain 5+

the book forces you to choose the Ruin save everytime, which means you are not claiming area terrain save

deciding to go ground is a modifier to that save not the save itself

To get that 2+ you have to be able to claim the ruins AND say you are claiming area. The book doesn't give that option, instead forces you to automatically claim the best, which is ruins. Since ruin terrain is not area terrain it would mean that you grab 3+ cover

At least that is how I read it

The only issue is, best save is determined after you go to ground. For example, say you have an IC with 4++ invuln in 5+ area terrain and someone fires a lascannon at him. Does he have to take his 4++ or can he go-to-ground for the 3+ cover? In this case, the best save is the save determined after he has gone-to-ground.

No, the controversy isn't in taking the best save. It's in how the saves are calculated and can they be combined. RAW is somewhat debatable. RAI, I don't believe they can. I believe the Intent of the authors is that you can only ever get a 3+ cover whether going-to-ground behind ruins or in area terrain, with the only exceptions being the ADL and obscurement from fortifications.

 Reecius wrote:
Not combative at all, no worries.

I just get asked this one all the time at tournaments. And, if you look at Jy2's response right after mine, it appears he reads the rule the same way you do, haha! It is unclear, I agree.

Honestly, I never really even thought about it. To me, I always thought it was 3+ cover if you G-T-G behind some ruin walls in area terrain.

But what brought it to my attention was this thread in YMDC:


Cover save fiasco... (Poll Added)


It appears that most people actually believe that RAW it would be a 2+ cover.

 Reecius wrote:

Like I said though, if your group plays it that way, run with it. The independent tournament FAQ rules it as a 3+ either way, which is what you would see at Adepticon, WargamesCon, BAO, LVO, Feast of Blades, etc.

Well, that takes care of that.

I can see both sides of the discussion, and I disagree with the contention that it becomes 2+, but that doesn't mean I am correct its just how I read it. I think best bet is to simply clarify it with your opponent (rolling off if you disagree) or in the case of Tournaments, discuss with the TO and go with it.

Reece, in general how are the Dark Eldar allies performing for you? Is the speed of the hellions performing well for you? I'm trying to decide what allies to play at my FLGS's next 40k league with my footdar and there are a number of options and they all seem so sweet.

@z3n1st

I think that is the most mature way to handle it and the way I go about it, too. Whenever Jim and I don't agree on a rule, we just dice it and it works fine. At an event or with a new opponent, just clarify it before hand to avoid a misunderstanding.

@slowbad

Honestly, I think it is a tough call between they and Tau, but I personally prefer DE because they give me a fast, tough, relatively durable scoring unit, the Ravager which is a great tank, and I love the models. They are my answer to MC's, Termies, etc. And, the Hellions are my unit that I can count on to go and sweep backfield objectives. That unit WILL take 1 or more objectives from any backfield unit baring an IG blob or Ork Mob. Even then, they have pretty good odds of chewing through them if they have the right buffs. But your typical backfield Horrors, Scouts, Marines, Cultists, etc. will get cut down by this unit with ease.