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.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Until the people that claim you can't gain the +2 unless you take the area terrain cover save can back up their position with actual rules we can ignore them.

I think you'll find that if you read the previous threads the rules are there supporting that opinion. However there is some ambiguity, not much but some. An FAQ would be helpful but I'm inclined to take Mannahnin's approach and use the less powerful of the two until it's FAQ'd. Saying that you can ignore someones opinion on an ambiguous rule because you failed to read the previous threads and the opposing opinions cited rules and interpretation is rather childish.

I read them and I disagree that the opinions of the 3+ side should be considered a valid candidate for the truth as it is based on shaky logic and twisting interpretation to suit their theory. The other side, however, is backed up by the rules written down in the rulebook.

Your opinion, and I agree it's a valid one. But the same has also been said about the pro-2+ argument. As I said before, both sides have an argument and even cite some of the same rules. But the interpretation is the only variation. So until the FAQ comes discuss with your opponent/TO. I however choose to use the less bias/powerful interpretation, given the difficulty in getting 2+ saves of any sort in 6th I believe it is the right choice.

 Happyjew wrote:
OK so then are we in agreement? Discuss with your group or wait for GW to FAQ it? Because every time this topic comes up, it is the same arguments made by the same people with no budging.

Indeed. it's more that a few rules points that lead to this disagreement need clarification, but a simple FAQ will set more than enough precedent.

 Idolator wrote:
The rules for area terrain give a +2 to your cover save and doesn't have any language that limits it to the cover provided by the area terrain.

Just as Going to Ground doesn't limit it to improving your cover save to open ground.

If you are 25% obscured by ruins, and in area terrain, and choose to go to ground, you get a +2 to your cover save. Meaning a 2+ from units shooting through the ruins and a 3+ from units shooting from another location. Being in area terrain doesn't make the ruins disappear.

Don't forget, open ground is also a terrain feature, with rules and everything. If you would only get the existing cover from the terrain feature that you occupy, then going to ground when on open ground would only give you 6+ even if you were behind a ruin. Otherwise you would take the 4+ from the ruin or whatever you happened to be behind.

This was part of the discussion over at BoLS. Still working out the other part with a fellow, but that's not the topic specified here.

Few points; GTG in open terrain will never improve a cover save, only grant one. The language of each of the rules that leads to this debate is ambiguous which is why we have the disagreement.

One of main issues come from GTG in area terrain while using a fuel reserve save, it makes no sense that area terrains modifier improves the chance of your model being doused in prometheum. Especially if that fuel reserve is 3" from the firing unit and 6" or more from the unit being fired on.

 Bausk wrote:
[


Few points; GTG in open terrain will never improve a cover save, only grant one. The language of each of the rules that leads to this debate is ambiguous which is why we have the disagreement.

One of main issues come from GTG in area terrain while using a fuel reserve save, it makes no sense that area terrains modifier improves the chance of your model being doused in prometheum. Especially if that fuel reserve is 3" from the firing unit and 6" or more from the unit being fired on.

The first bullet point for GTG - models in a unit that has gone to ground immediately receive a +1 to their cover save.

Meaning that a model in open ground (a terrain feature), would improve whatever cover save it might have. Being in one terrain feature doesn't negate the cover provided from being 25% obscured by another.

That's the crux of the argument. Going to Ground gives a flat, +1 to a cover save, not just for the terrain feature that the unit is placed upon. The same is true for going to ground while in area terrain. It gives a flat +2 to a cover save, not a bonus to the cover that they happen to be in.

 Idolator wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
[


Few points; GTG in open terrain will never improve a cover save, only grant one. The language of each of the rules that leads to this debate is ambiguous which is why we have the disagreement.

One of main issues come from GTG in area terrain while using a fuel reserve save, it makes no sense that area terrains modifier improves the chance of your model being doused in prometheum. Especially if that fuel reserve is 3" from the firing unit and 6" or more from the unit being fired on.

The first bullet point for GTG - models in a unit that has gone to ground immediately receive a +1 to their cover save.

Meaning that a model in open ground (a terrain feature), would improve whatever cover save it might have. Being in one terrain feature doesn't negate the cover provided from being 25% obscured by another.

That's the crux of the argument. Going to Ground gives a flat, +1 to a cover save, not just for the terrain feature that the unit is placed upon. The same is true for going to ground while in area terrain. It gives a flat +2 to a cover save, not a bonus to the cover that they happen to be in.

You are confusing GTG with terrain rules. IF you GTG in open terrain you never receive a bonus to a cover save, just a cover save. If you GTG 6": away from a wall thats 25% obscuring you from the firing unit and you also happen to be standing in open terrain you get the bonus +1 to the cover save you are using, the wall in this case. You are not using the rules for open terrain as your cover save so its a null and void point. The crux of the argument actually is; it doesn't matter where the model is, only what save they are using. I was pointing that out, you just misunderstood.

 Bausk wrote:
[

You are confusing GTG with terrain rules. IF you GTG in open terrain you never receive a bonus to a cover save, just a cover save. If you GTG 6": away from a wall thats 25% obscuring you from the firing unit and you also happen to be standing in open terrain you get the bonus +1 to the cover save you are using, the wall in this case. You are not using the rules for open terrain as your cover save so its a null and void point. The crux of the argument actually is; it doesn't matter where the model is, only what save they are using. I was pointing that out, you just misunderstood.

I have a feeling that we agree, but are having a difficult time understanding each other.

I concur that cover save is not solely dictated by the terrain that you are in. That other factors such as intervening terrain, models, etc. must also be taken into account.

Those who claim that going to ground, while in area terrain, only applies the cover granted by the terrain occupied is analogous to claiming that going to ground, while in open ground terrain, only applies to the terrain occupied. If you ignore the other factors to one, you have to ignore the factors for the other.

Claiming that a bonus is attached to the currently occupied terrain, would have to be applied equally.

It's not contained just to the occupied terrain however. The fact that a unit is on open ground, in area terrain or anything else doesn't negate the fact that a unit is being shot at through a ruin that obscured 25% of a model. Going to ground provides a flat +1 to this cover save and going to ground while in area terrain provides a flat +2 to this cover save.

 Bausk wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Until the people that claim you can't gain the +2 unless you take the area terrain cover save can back up their position with actual rules we can ignore them.

I think you'll find that if you read the previous threads the rules are there supporting that opinion. However there is some ambiguity, not much but some. An FAQ would be helpful but I'm inclined to take Mannahnin's approach and use the less powerful of the two until it's FAQ'd. Saying that you can ignore someones opinion on an ambiguous rule because you failed to read the previous threads and the opposing opinions cited rules and interpretation is rather childish.

I read them and I disagree that the opinions of the 3+ side should be considered a valid candidate for the truth as it is based on shaky logic and twisting interpretation to suit their theory. The other side, however, is backed up by the rules written down in the rulebook.

Your opinion, and I agree it's a valid one. But the same has also been said about the pro-2+ argument. As I said before, both sides have an argument and even cite some of the same rules. But the interpretation is the only variation. So until the FAQ comes discuss with your opponent/TO. I however choose to use the less bias/powerful interpretation, given the difficulty in getting 2+ saves of any sort in 6th I believe it is the right choice.

Oh yes, it is incredibly difficult to get a 2+ cover save in 6th.
1. Going to ground behind a defence line.
2. Having Shrouded behind a defence line or ruin.
3. Having Stealth and going to ground in area terrain.
4. Having Stealth, Shrouded and any sort of 5+ cover.
With Aegis Defence Lines available to everyone, Stealth and Shrouded USRs handed out to various units and available from Night Fighting.

 Idolator wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
[

You are confusing GTG with terrain rules. IF you GTG in open terrain you never receive a bonus to a cover save, just a cover save. If you GTG 6": away from a wall thats 25% obscuring you from the firing unit and you also happen to be standing in open terrain you get the bonus +1 to the cover save you are using, the wall in this case. You are not using the rules for open terrain as your cover save so its a null and void point. The crux of the argument actually is; it doesn't matter where the model is, only what save they are using. I was pointing that out, you just misunderstood.

I have a feeling that we agree, but are having a difficult time understanding each other.

I concur that cover save is not solely dictated by the terrain that you are in. That other factors such as intervening terrain, models, etc. must also be taken into account.

Those who claim that going to ground, while in area terrain, only applies the cover granted by the terrain occupied is analogous to claiming that going to ground, while in open ground terrain, only applies to the terrain occupied. If you ignore the other factors to one, you have to ignore the factors for the other.

Claiming that a bonus is attached to the currently occupied terrain, would have to be applied equally.

It's not contained just to the occupied terrain however. The fact that a unit is on open ground, in area terrain or anything else doesn't negate the fact that a unit is being shot at through a ruin that obscured 25% of a model. Going to ground provides a flat +1 to this cover save and going to ground while in area terrain provides a flat +2 to this cover save.

We agree in areas however disagree in others. Occupation of terrain does not mean you use it's rules in every given situation. In the case of cover saves I'm arguing that it doesn't matter where the model is standing, only what cover save rules they are using. The ambiguity of the wording in the rules leaves this open for debate.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Oh yes, it is incredibly difficult to get a 2+ cover save in 6th.
1. Going to ground behind a defence line.
2. Having Shrouded behind a defence line or ruin.
3. Having Stealth and going to ground in area terrain.
4. Having Stealth, Shrouded and any sort of 5+ cover.
With Aegis Defence Lines available to everyone, Stealth and Shrouded USRs handed out to various units and available from Night Fighting.

I actually said the difficulty in getting any 2+ save, not just a cover save. They have clearly reduced the availability of 2+ armour saves and there is very few ways of getting a 2+ invulnerable. In the case of cover saves the point costs, limited use to shooting attacks and restrictions attached to attaining some modifiers more than accounts for the slightly higher than average attainability. In all of the 4 examples you listed, given the disproportionate amount of other cover saves available, you are required to take a negative (in the case of GTG) or have a select combination of USR, terrain rule and value cover save. Incredibly difficult? No. Difficult because if you do attain one you have to pay X points, be able to use Y cover save and/or have Z penalty? Yes.

Where have they reduced the availability of 2+ saves?

Every recent codex has the same or greater abilty to gain 2+ saves - for example eldar have a power that improves the armour save of models by 1

2+ invulnerables have also increased, not reduced. Shadowfields were always the classic, however Grimoire for daemons means they often rock a 2+ invulnerable, Kharn has a 2++ against FW, etc.

Your central position - that 2+ saves are "more" difficult to get - is just wrong.

It's still pretty obvious that 2 plus saves are rare, for most armies.

Asking for a (superior) cover save from ruins, and asking for the cover save bonus for being in terrain, where you're not using the (inferior) cover save from terrain, seems a lot like wanting to have your cake and eat it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Where have they reduced the availability of 2+ saves?

Every recent codex has the same or greater abilty to gain 2+ saves - for example eldar have a power that improves the armour save of models by 1

2+ invulnerables have also increased, not reduced. Shadowfields were always the classic, however Grimoire for daemons means they often rock a 2+ invulnerable, Kharn has a 2++ against FW, etc.

Your central position - that 2+ saves are "more" difficult to get - is just wrong.

3 examples of how many codices? And Kharns 2++ is unique and limited to a select few attacks so it's hardly worth mentioning. Eldar have a power, that requires a few things more than just the armour itself one would imagine. Daemons have very little else aside from invulnerable saves and having to improve it with something like grimoire reduces its availability/use.

They have reduced availability of armours like artificer & flesh metal (previously chaos armour) and reduced what can penetrate these armours as well. As per the melee weapon changes we've seen. It's along the lines of the fnp nerf to 5+ and reducing the amount of characters with EW. These things seem intended to be powerful and rare (yes with a variety or rarity, some are not as rare as others). And where that rarity is not as present it is balanced via draw backs, limited use, points cost or requiring outside factors to attain.

I am shocked,SHOCKED! That a company might actually improve the rules that would apply to building models that weren't selling that well.

I am equally shocked that a company would change rules that would make cover saves for monstrous creatures better, especially since they began to include those very expensive models in every release after those rules were written!

Shocked! I tell you.

 Bausk wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Where have they reduced the availability of 2+ saves?

Every recent codex has the same or greater abilty to gain 2+ saves - for example eldar have a power that improves the armour save of models by 1

2+ invulnerables have also increased, not reduced. Shadowfields were always the classic, however Grimoire for daemons means they often rock a 2+ invulnerable, Kharn has a 2++ against FW, etc.

Your central position - that 2+ saves are "more" difficult to get - is just wrong.

3 examples of how many codices? And Kharns 2++ is unique and limited to a select few attacks so it's hardly worth mentioning. Eldar have a power, that requires a few things more than just the armour itself one would imagine. Daemons have very little else aside from invulnerable saves and having to improve it with something like grimoire reduces its availability/use.

They have reduced availability of armours like artificer & flesh metal (previously chaos armour) and reduced what can penetrate these armours as well. As per the melee weapon changes we've seen. It's along the lines of the fnp nerf to 5+ and reducing the amount of characters with EW. These things seem intended to be powerful and rare (yes with a variety or rarity, some are not as rare as others). And where that rarity is not as present it is balanced via draw backs, limited use, points cost or requiring outside factors to attain.

Erm, you still havent proven your hypothesis - that they have *reduced* the availability of 2+ Saves. WE have so far pointed out that the availabilty of any 2+ save has only gone UP

Melee weapon changes have not affected the availability of 2+ saves, but reduced the number of weapons that can pierce it. Totally irrelevant to your argument.

So, given you STILL havent proven your assertion - with ANY actual facts - please withdraw it. I have countered with 3 examples where the number of 2++ saves has *increased*, and the prior examples showing how much easier it is in 6th to gain 2+ cover saves, disproves your theort.

Retract it, or support it with something relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and chaos havent had 2+ armour outside of terminator armour since 3rd. Hardly "recent" change.

Per capita of saves its decreased since 3rd. The lagest shifts in late 4th to 6th. Yes for some armies given a specific set of of outside influeces or penalties can now get a 2+ save. But overall availability of attaining a 2+ save has decreased.

No one would have an issue with you being affected by two pieces of terrain at the same time if they played with mysterious terrain (as it makes it quite apparent that you can be affected by two pieces of terrain). A core mechanic that no one uses despite being part of standard games according to the rules.

In fact saying models only benefit from one piece of terrain at a time would be considered looking for a loop hole if people actually used mysterious terrain. As mysterious terrain effects are often not beneficial!

For example:

Any model that goes to ground in industrial ooze must pass a Toughness test or suffer a Wound with no armour saves or cover saves allowed.

You have some models in industrial ooze behind a ruin (obscured) and they go to ground. They are using the cover save from the ruin, but are going to ground in the ooze, now if you only benefit from one piece of terrain at a time you wouldn't get hurt by the ooze because you only benefit from one type of terrain at a time, and you are using the ruin (despite going to ground in the ooze). Which clearly doesn't make sense, and would been seen as a dodgy way of trying to avoid the damage from the ooze.

However if you can be affected by two pieces of terrain at the same time (which the rules say nothing against). You would take the wounds from going to ground in the ooze despite using the save from the ruin. Which makes sense as after all your guys are diving into industrial aside to increase their save!

In the same light area terrain give you a +2 to cover saves when going to ground in addition to a 5+ cover save. Although you can only benefit from one cover save, the +2 to cover save is a bonus that will still apply to you when you go to ground, the same way when you go to ground in ooze behind a ruin you will still have to take a toughness test.

So to reiterate, the only reason people have a problem with this is because it involves a positive effect from going to ground in area terrain. If it involved a negative effect, then I damn right bet everyone would make you take that ooze test!

There are a lot of negative effects to area terrain in the game, they are in fact part of the standard core mechanics, 99% of the 40k community just chooses to pretend they don't exist. The designers designed terrain to be a risky affair, a 2+ cover save is all well and great but is it worth getting eaten by a Razorwing Nest for?

Because shooting is so bad already that it needs another rule to make cover worse...

Note that mysterious terrain is not a required rule at all. If neither player places any mysterious terrain, there is none during the game, just like there are no ruins if neither player places any ruins.