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.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Page 108 gives the rules for ruins. The top of page 108
clearly defines the difference between 'in cover behind' and 'in'. The specification on ruins uses the term 'in'. therefore you must be 'in' to gain the 4+.
Don mondo correctly points out that in the section on Difficult Terrain, ruins are given as a specific example of something that provides a 5+ cover save 'in cover behind'.

Um no, the rule says that models in ruins recieve a 4+ even if they are not 25% or more obscured. It does not say that the 25% rule does not count. And again the rule Don mondo refers to states "unless specifically noted other wise, a model in cover recieves a 5+ cover save" So then we look at ruins and ruins grants a 4+ cover save. So it specifically states a 4+ cover save.

a 4+ if you are 'in' regardless of obscurement. When 'in' is specifically and clearly defined.

 cerbrus2 wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Page 108 gives the rules for ruins. The top of page 108
clearly defines the difference between 'in cover behind' and 'in'. The specification on ruins uses the term 'in'. therefore you must be 'in' to gain the 4+.
Don mondo correctly points out that in the section on Difficult Terrain, ruins are given as a specific example of something that provides a 5+ cover save 'in cover behind'.

Um no, the rule says that models in ruins recieve a 4+ even if they are not 25% or more obscured. It does not say that the 25% rule does not count. And again the rule Don mondo refers to states "unless specifically noted other wise, a model in cover recieves a 5+ cover save" So then we look at ruins and ruins grants a 4+ cover save. So it specifically states a 4+ cover save.

And I never said otherwise. Being "IN" the ruins gives you a 4+, regardless of 25% or not. Absolutely. But being out of the ruins while obscured (25% LOS coverage of the model by the ruins) only gives a 5+.

 don_mondo wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Page 108 gives the rules for ruins. The top of page 108
clearly defines the difference between 'in cover behind' and 'in'. The specification on ruins uses the term 'in'. therefore you must be 'in' to gain the 4+.
Don mondo correctly points out that in the section on Difficult Terrain, ruins are given as a specific example of something that provides a 5+ cover save 'in cover behind'.

Um no, the rule says that models in ruins recieve a 4+ even if they are not 25% or more obscured. It does not say that the 25% rule does not count. And again the rule Don mondo refers to states "unless specifically noted other wise, a model in cover recieves a 5+ cover save" So then we look at ruins and ruins grants a 4+ cover save. So it specifically states a 4+ cover save.

And I never said otherwise. Being "IN" the ruins gives you a 4+, regardless of 25% or not. Absolutely. But being out of the ruins while obscured (25% LOS coverage of the model by the ruins) only gives a 5+.

Where does it say ruins only give you a 5+ save if you are not in them, and only obscured by them? page and paragraph please. As I can't fined anything of the sort only the rule I mentioned before. And that grants you the 4+ Because you are 25% obscured by ruins. And ruins grant a 4+. The ruins rule states that if you are in the ruins. You get. 4+ save even if you are not 25% obscured. The defining rule for in and in cover behind are clear. "In" grants you the 4+ save if you are not obscured, in cover "behind" grants you the 4+ save if 25% of the model is obscured. Because we are told unless otherwise stated cover of any type grants a 5+ and ruins is "otherwise stated" meaning it grants a 4+.

This is also backed up by the vehicle cover rules on page 77 "obscured vehicles,second paragraph, 25% or more of the vehicle is obscured and will receive a 4+ cover save from the ruin" note that it says obscured by the ruin, not in the ruin.

Determining Cover Saves states that all Cover provides a 5+ to any Model 25% or more obscured, unless specifically stated.
The example datasheets containing the 'Ruin' Special Rule only grant a 4+ to Models standing within a Ruin. This must be why it states regardless of being 25% or more obstructed, which would be a very strange rule for what occurs when you are 25% or more Obstructed, unless we want to argue that 1% Obscured by a Ruin is enough for a 4+ Cover Save. As the Ruin Special Rule does not specifically give a cover save to models which are obscured 25% or more by a ruin, instead of just standing within one, it does not change the default rules for determining a Cover save for being 25% obscured. Without that one specific clause any piece of Terrain can only ever generate a 5+ cover save, it is a requirement of 7th Edition, and this is what creates the problem for any pieces of terrain using the current example of the 'Ruin' Special Rule.

Best to just pen in a 4+ cover save for Models 25% or more obscured, directly onto the datasheet....

BRB pg 77 more than 25% obscure by a wall gives a 4+ cover save. If the entire front is hidden you get an additional +1, so a 3+ cover save.

It also says vehicles are NOT obscured simply for being inside terrain, the 25% rule takes precedence.

 cerbrus2 wrote:


Where does it say ruins only give you a 5+ save if you are not in them, and only obscured by them? page and paragraph please. As I can't fined anything of the sort only the rule I mentioned before. And that grants you the 4+ Because you are 25% obscured by ruins. And ruins grant a 4+. The ruins rule states that if you are in the ruins. You get. 4+ save even if you are not 25% obscured. The defining rule for in and in cover behind are clear. "In" grants you the 4+ save if you are not obscured, in cover "behind" grants you the 4+ save if 25% of the model is obscured. Because we are told unless otherwise stated cover of any type grants a 5+ and ruins is "otherwise stated" meaning it grants a 4+.

This is also backed up by the vehicle cover rules on page 77 "obscured vehicles,second paragraph, 25% or more of the vehicle is obscured and will receive a 4+ cover save from the ruin" note that it says obscured by the ruin, not in the ruin.

OK, page 108, Terrain Types.

1. "When one of the following rules refers to a model being 'in cover behind' a piece of terrain, this means the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenery and therefor eligible for a cover save (page 37). On the other hand, when one of the following rules refers to a model being 'IN' a piece of terrain, this means that model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not."

2. (same page)
Difficult Terrain
"It includes areas of rubble, woods, RUINS, rocky outcrops......" Unless specifically noted otherwise, a model IN COVER BEHIND difficult terrain has a 5+ cover save."

3. (same page)
RUINS
Models IN ruins receive a 4+ cover save, whether or not they are 25% obscured."

So....
1. GW spells out the difference between obscured and IN.
2. Tells us that ruins get a 5+ for obscured unless specifically noted otherwise.
3. Tells us ruins give a 4+ for IN, but does not specify otherwise for obscured.

EDIT:
Also note that this entire argument also applies to "areas of rubble" which are also listed as 5+ for obscured but on page 109 say 4+ for in, whether or not they are 25% obscured. reason I added this is that once could easily be a mistake, but same mistake twice?? (altho this is GW) End of edit.

Now I'll shoot my own foot. While looking for this, I noticed that the example on page 37 mentions the Orks getting a 4+ for being obscured by ruins. So which is right, the rules or the example? Course, the Orks are also in the piece of terrain (ie standing on the base of the terrain piece...), so who knows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
BRB pg 77 more than 25% obscure by a wall gives a 4+ cover save. If the entire front is hidden you get an additional +1, so a 3+ cover save.

It also says vehicles are NOT obscured simply for being inside terrain, the 25% rule takes precedence.

Yep, so the question is, are vehicles the exception or the standard? Do non-vehicles get a 4+ or a 5+.

 don_mondo wrote:
I noticed that the example on page 37 mentions the Orks getting a 4+ for being obscured by ruins.

This is also what i noticed. However we are discussing Vehicles and not infantry here, so p77, 4th bullet point:

Page 77 wrote:it must take a cover save, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin and so on)

 BlackTalos wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
I noticed that the example on page 37 mentions the Orks getting a 4+ for being obscured by ruins.

This is also what i noticed. However we are discussing Vehicles and not infantry here, so p77, 4th bullet point:

Page 77 wrote:it must take a cover save, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin and so on)

Yes, the discussion started with a question regarding a vehicle (and I responded to that on page 1, 4+ save for being obscured) and has morphed (as they often do) to cover other aspects of the question at hand. Hence the posts/discussion about non-vehicle cover saves. So by rules, Infantry IN ruins get a 4+, infantry obscured by ruins get a 5+. But we have the Orks example on page 37 that disagrees with RAW. And while I'm the one posting the rules that say 5+ for obscured, I'm not going to ignore something else I see that disagrees with my position just because it disagrees. So back to the question, rules or example?

 don_mondo wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
I noticed that the example on page 37 mentions the Orks getting a 4+ for being obscured by ruins.

This is also what i noticed. However we are discussing Vehicles and not infantry here, so p77, 4th bullet point:

Page 77 wrote:it must take a cover save, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin and so on)

Yes, the discussion started with a question regarding a vehicle (and I responded to that on page 1, 4+ save for being obscured) and has morphed (as they often do) to cover other aspects of the question at hand. Hence the posts/discussion about non-vehicle cover saves. So by rules, Infantry IN ruins get a 4+, infantry obscured by ruins get a 5+. But we have the Orks example on page 37 that disagrees with RAW. And while I'm the one posting the rules that say 5+ for obscured, I'm not going to ignore something else I see that disagrees with my position just because it disagrees. So back to the question, rules or example?

I would actually also back up Infantry with my post above:

Page 77 wrote:it must take a cover save, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin and so on)

Past pictures have shown Models poised in illegal positions, carrying illegal war-gear or being used as examples for Rules they have no access to or in ways that don't match the written Rules....

 BlackTalos wrote:


I would actually also back up Infantry with my post above:

Page 77 wrote:it must take a cover save, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound (for example, a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin and so on)

That one line is assuming "non-vehicle model"(s) would also have a 4+ obscured by a ruin. If Infantry got a 5+ from Ruins obscuration then it would not be "non-vehicle model".

As much as the bottom Ork on p37 is not even standing "on" the ruin (His red circle covers the ruin, but his base doesn't), i vaguely remember Dakka YMDC argument not allowing "pretty pictures" for some reason?

Or it's just saying that just like non-vehicle models, it gets a cover save.... And given how much people have argued in the past that vehicles couldn't get this save or that save, it's not inconceivable that they decided that might be a necessary statement. Then we actually look at the rules to see what kind of cover save it gets. And for that, well, I posted the relevant rules from pg 108.

 don_mondo wrote:

Or it's just saying that just like non-vehicle models, it gets a cover save.... And given how much people have argued in the past that vehicles couldn't get this save or that save, it's not inconceivable that they decided that might be a necessary statement. Then we actually look at the rules to see what kind of cover save it gets. And for that, well, I posted the relevant rules from pg 108.

Agreed, but it has been my impression in 6th Ed, and not changed in 7th, that Vehicles get the "same" cover save as infantry:

Forests are 5+ for Vehicle+Infantry
(High) Tanglewires are 6+ for Vehicle+Infantry
Ruins are 4+ for Vehicle+Infantry
Imperial Statuary are 3+ for Vehicle+Infantry
Fortifications are 3+ for Vehicle+Infantry (6th Ed)

- Question: What is your cover save being "behind" a bastion now?

 don_mondo wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:


Where does it say ruins only give you a 5+ save if you are not in them, and only obscured by them? page and paragraph please. As I can't fined anything of the sort only the rule I mentioned before. And that grants you the 4+ Because you are 25% obscured by ruins. And ruins grant a 4+. The ruins rule states that if you are in the ruins. You get. 4+ save even if you are not 25% obscured. The defining rule for in and in cover behind are clear. "In" grants you the 4+ save if you are not obscured, in cover "behind" grants you the 4+ save if 25% of the model is obscured. Because we are told unless otherwise stated cover of any type grants a 5+ and ruins is "otherwise stated" meaning it grants a 4+.

This is also backed up by the vehicle cover rules on page 77 "obscured vehicles,second paragraph, 25% or more of the vehicle is obscured and will receive a 4+ cover save from the ruin" note that it says obscured by the ruin, not in the ruin.

OK, page 108, Terrain Types.

1. "When one of the following rules refers to a model being 'in cover behind' a piece of terrain, this means the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenery and therefor eligible for a cover save (page 37). On the other hand, when one of the following rules refers to a model being 'IN' a piece of terrain, this means that model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not."

2. (same page)
Difficult Terrain
"It includes areas of rubble, woods, RUINS, rocky outcrops......" Unless specifically noted otherwise, a model IN COVER BEHIND difficult terrain has a 5+ cover save."

3. (same page)
RUINS
Models IN ruins receive a 4+ cover save, whether or not they are 25% obscured."

So....
1. GW spells out the difference between obscured and IN.
2. Tells us that ruins get a 5+ for obscured unless specifically noted otherwise.
3. Tells us ruins give a 4+ for IN, but does not specify otherwise for obscured.

EDIT:
Also note that this entire argument also applies to "areas of rubble" which are also listed as 5+ for obscured but on page 109 say 4+ for in, whether or not they are 25% obscured. reason I added this is that once could easily be a mistake, but same mistake twice?? (altho this is GW) End of edit.

Now I'll shoot my own foot. While looking for this, I noticed that the example on page 37 mentions the Orks getting a 4+ for being obscured by ruins. So which is right, the rules or the example? Course, the Orks are also in the piece of terrain (ie standing on the base of the terrain piece...), so who knows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
BRB pg 77 more than 25% obscure by a wall gives a 4+ cover save. If the entire front is hidden you get an additional +1, so a 3+ cover save.

It also says vehicles are NOT obscured simply for being inside terrain, the 25% rule takes precedence.

Yep, so the question is, are vehicles the exception or the standard? Do non-vehicles get a 4+ or a 5+.

I see what you are getting however I feel like you have misread the sentence. It lists ruins as an example of difficult terrain not as an example of what gives 5+ cover. It after the example of difficult terrain. It says then states that unless specified otherwise difficult terrain grants a 5+ save. And ruins state they give a 4+ save regardless of models being 25% obscured.

So as you say, there are two pages that mention orks gaining the 4+ for obscured and a second page saying vehicles get 4+ for obscured. The only reference to ruins is as an example of difficult terrain.

For models IN the terrain they get a 4+. If they're models outside of the terrain, why are you using these rules?

 cerbrus2 wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:


Where does it say ruins only give you a 5+ save if you are not in them, and only obscured by them? page and paragraph please. As I can't fined anything of the sort only the rule I mentioned before. And that grants you the 4+ Because you are 25% obscured by ruins. And ruins grant a 4+. The ruins rule states that if you are in the ruins. You get. 4+ save even if you are not 25% obscured. The defining rule for in and in cover behind are clear. "In" grants you the 4+ save if you are not obscured, in cover "behind" grants you the 4+ save if 25% of the model is obscured. Because we are told unless otherwise stated cover of any type grants a 5+ and ruins is "otherwise stated" meaning it grants a 4+.

This is also backed up by the vehicle cover rules on page 77 "obscured vehicles,second paragraph, 25% or more of the vehicle is obscured and will receive a 4+ cover save from the ruin" note that it says obscured by the ruin, not in the ruin.

OK, page 108, Terrain Types.

1. "When one of the following rules refers to a model being 'in cover behind' a piece of terrain, this means the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenery and therefor eligible for a cover save (page 37). On the other hand, when one of the following rules refers to a model being 'IN' a piece of terrain, this means that model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not."

2. (same page)
Difficult Terrain
"It includes areas of rubble, woods, RUINS, rocky outcrops......" Unless specifically noted otherwise, a model IN COVER BEHIND difficult terrain has a 5+ cover save."

3. (same page)
RUINS
Models IN ruins receive a 4+ cover save, whether or not they are 25% obscured."

So....
1. GW spells out the difference between obscured and IN.
2. Tells us that ruins get a 5+ for obscured unless specifically noted otherwise.
3. Tells us ruins give a 4+ for IN, but does not specify otherwise for obscured.

EDIT:
Also note that this entire argument also applies to "areas of rubble" which are also listed as 5+ for obscured but on page 109 say 4+ for in, whether or not they are 25% obscured. reason I added this is that once could easily be a mistake, but same mistake twice?? (altho this is GW) End of edit.

Now I'll shoot my own foot. While looking for this, I noticed that the example on page 37 mentions the Orks getting a 4+ for being obscured by ruins. So which is right, the rules or the example? Course, the Orks are also in the piece of terrain (ie standing on the base of the terrain piece...), so who knows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TimmyIsChaos wrote:
BRB pg 77 more than 25% obscure by a wall gives a 4+ cover save. If the entire front is hidden you get an additional +1, so a 3+ cover save.

It also says vehicles are NOT obscured simply for being inside terrain, the 25% rule takes precedence.

Yep, so the question is, are vehicles the exception or the standard? Do non-vehicles get a 4+ or a 5+.

I see what you are getting however I feel like you have misread the sentence. It lists ruins as an example of difficult terrain not as an example of what gives 5+ cover. It after the example of difficult terrain. It says then states that unless specified otherwise difficult terrain grants a 5+ save. And ruins state they give a 4+ save regardless of models being 25% obscured.

So as you say, there are two pages that mention orks gaining the 4+ for obscured and a second page saying vehicles get 4+ for obscured. The only reference to ruins is as an example of difficult terrain.

Gad, I hate wall of text posts, but lose too much context if I crop it.

Yes, it lists ruins as difficult terrain and then says that models obscured by difficult terrain get a 5+ cover save, unless specifically stated otherwise. So, show me that specific rule statement that ruins grant a 4+ cover save to obscured models. Not to models IN the ruins, but obscured by the ruins. Non-vehicle models IN, key word, IN, ruins have a 4+ cover save. You can't, because it does not exist. We have a picture and example, and as others have pointed out, those are sometimes incorrect. We've seen it before, where the example did not agree with the rule, and given GWs inability to properly edit, I've no doubt that we will see it again.

@ Black Talos, I believe you are correct re 6th but so far I'm not seeing it for 7th (ie the same cover for vehicles/non-vehicles). It may be what they intended but if so, they need to say it. Re a Bastion, I have no idea, I have yet to acquire the Stronghold Assault so I don't know for sure exactly what it's rules currently say.

Bottom line, yeah, GW probably needs to FAQ their intent. Till then, we just go round and round.

One other thing I want you to keep in mind about pictures:
1) The text written on, underneath or anywhere near a picture is usually part of the image file.
2) The image files have been re-used from 6th edition to 7th edition, when it comes to pictures the most 'editing' they did was to change the layout....
3) The issue stems from a change from 6th edition to 7th eddition.

As stated before:
we have seen pictures showing Models with incorrect war-gear, in physical locations the Rules do not allow, used as examples in Rules they do not possess and so forth:
So why is it so hard to add 'providing the wrong cover save for an obscured vehicle' to that list when the pictured example is clearly against the words as Written?

JinxDragon wrote:
One other thing I want you to keep in mind about pictures:
1) The text written on, underneath or anywhere near a picture is usually part of the image file.
2) The image files have been re-used from 6th edition to 7th edition, when it comes to pictures the most 'editing' they did was to change the layout....
3) The issue stems from a change from 6th edition to 7th eddition.

As stated before:
we have seen pictures showing Models with incorrect war-gear, in physical locations the Rules do not allow, used as examples in Rules they do not possess and so forth:
So why is it so hard to add 'providing the wrong cover save for an obscured vehicle' to that list when the pictured example is clearly against the words as Written?

Not Vehicle, Ork. P37 is the aforementioned picture with issues


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 don_mondo wrote:
@ Black Talos, I believe you are correct re 6th but so far I'm not seeing it for 7th (ie the same cover for vehicles/non-vehicles). It may be what they intended but if so, they need to say it. Re a Bastion, I have no idea, I have yet to acquire the Stronghold Assault so I don't know for sure exactly what it's rules currently say.

Stronghold Assault does not have any definition of cover past what is on page 109 of the BrB, so no help there.

Can you point me to anything (apart from the ruins issue) where the Cover Save value for an Ork is different to the one of a vehicle? Because so far with 7th it seems they are the same. The wording of the paragraph is the same as 6th Ed too, so i see no change?

Here's the breakdown of how cover works as I understand it:

Infantry
Gets cover saves from being IN terrain
Gets cover saves from being 25% obscured by terrain
Cover saves are 5+ unless otherwise noted (e.g, Ruins and Battlements are 4+, Craters are 6+)
+1 cover from going to ground unless otherwise noted (e.g, Craters and Aegis Defense Line are +2)

Vehicles
Gets cover saves from being 25% obscured by terrain
Cover saves are 5+ unless otherwise noted (e.g, Ruins are 4+)
If the shooter cannot see the the side of the vehicle who's arc their are in, they instead shoot at another facing they can see, but the vehicle receives a +1 to their cover save

In the OP's case, the shooters are positioned looking up the side of the Sanctum Imperialis, and so can see the front of the flyer's wing. The flyer is more than 25% obscured, so gets the 4+ cover save. It doesn't get the +1 cover save advantage, since the shooters are (presumably) in the front arc and can see part of the front of the wing. It's a pretty weird situation - the flyer ignores terrain, so you CAN pivot it freely (even if the wing would interfere with the building). As long as you can place the base at the destination, it's legal to do these sorts of shenanigans. That's the price of having a streamlined, abstracted wargaming system.

Quoting Pages is no longer useful, given that e-books are now more numerous and those re-size to fit a device.

If you mean the picture under the Determining Cover Saves then my post is still correct, it has the very same problems as the Determining Cover Saves for Vehicle pictures. From a glance it is easy to see that they have done nothing but take the already existing image file for 6th, change the formatting so the text box is now under the picture instead of beside it, and slapped it into the e-copy of the book. What little editing was done to the sentence structure was to remove 'filler' information, designed to flesh out a paragraph and I know it well, so that it would take up a little less room and better fit on smaller devices.

As the misinformation found within would all be correct under 6th edition, whomever copied and pasted it did not know or care that it didn't fit the instructions for 7th.

Has anyone made a valid point against the clear statement that ruins grant a 4+ cover save to vehicles, as presented in the chapter on cover with vehicles (p.600)?

"They must have made a mistake!" is not a valid counter-argument as we're talking RAW, not RAI.

Sigvatr wrote:Has anyone made a valid point against the clear statement that ruins grant a 4+ cover save to vehicles, as presented in the chapter on cover with vehicles (p.600)?

"They must have made a mistake!" is not a valid counter-argument as we're talking RAW, not RAI.

Nope, and I for one am not even arguing against that one. It's the non-vehicle situation that is all screwed up.

BlackTalos wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
@ Black Talos, I believe you are correct re 6th but so far I'm not seeing it for 7th (ie the same cover for vehicles/non-vehicles). It may be what they intended but if so, they need to say it. Re a Bastion, I have no idea, I have yet to acquire the Stronghold Assault so I don't know for sure exactly what it's rules currently say.

Stronghold Assault does not have any definition of cover past what is on page 109 of the BrB, so no help there.

Can you point me to anything (apart from the ruins issue) where the Cover Save value for an Ork is different to the one of a vehicle? Because so far with 7th it seems they are the same. The wording of the paragraph is the same as 6th Ed too, so i see no change?

If you mean cover save based on the example/pictures? Nope. Just the rules that disagree with it. And c'mon, rules vs picture, which one do you think is more likely correct? Back to the Bastion, if it sin't stated that it gives a particular level of cover save for being obscured by it, then the default seems to be 5+.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DanielBeaver wrote:
Here's the breakdown of how cover works as I understand it:

Infantry
Gets cover saves from being IN terrain
Gets cover saves from being 25% obscured by terrain
Cover saves are 5+ unless otherwise noted (e.g, Ruins and Battlements are 4+, Craters are 6+)
+1 cover from going to ground unless otherwise noted (e.g, Craters and Aegis Defense Line are +2)

And the cover save can be different for the same piece of terrain depending on whether you are in it or obscured by it.

Right. P600 is not a page .. let me see page 77? Im that example the rhino is 'in' the ruin, so there is no conflict.

In an actual game I would recommend you define what 'in' means for each ruin as they often dont have a base.

Ok so, for a vehicle to gain a 4+ for a ruin (as per page 108) it needs to be 'in', however it ALSO has to be obscured.

If it was only obscured but not 'in' then it would only be a 5+ as per page 108, but page 77 doesn't make this clear (probably a mistake, but not a direct contradiction)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am starting to lean towards the idea the writers haven't got this right. Clearly some of them think ruins are a 4+ when obscured, but theres no rule to support that.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Right. P600 is not a page .. let me see page 77? Im that example the rhino is 'in' the ruin, so there is no conflict..

Arf, sorry, still using the conjoined version. Will get the shorter one. It's the paragraph "Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets".

It explicitely says that vehicles are never obscured from simply being "in" terrain.

It then goes on and specifically mentions woods giving a 5+ and ruins giving a 4+ cover save. Seems pretty clear to me, so I don't get why there's so much confusion :/

 don_mondo wrote:

 DanielBeaver wrote:
Here's the breakdown of how cover works as I understand it:

Infantry
Gets cover saves from being IN terrain
Gets cover saves from being 25% obscured by terrain
Cover saves are 5+ unless otherwise noted (e.g, Ruins and Battlements are 4+, Craters are 6+)
+1 cover from going to ground unless otherwise noted (e.g, Craters and Aegis Defense Line are +2)

And the cover save can be different for the same piece of terrain depending on whether you are in it or obscured by it.

That's been a point of contention at our FLGS, but I don't interpret it that way. I think it's pretty clear that the cover save is identical whether you're "in" it or "obscured" by it - though the rulebook is frustratingly unclear about that relatively simple thing. The blurb in the vehicles section mentioning that they would get 4+ cover saves from being obscured by ruins really clinches it for me.

Where in the Ruin Datasheet does it say models obscured by 25% of a Ruin gain a 4+ Cover Save?

That is a requirement under 7th edition, not that some example or picture misquotes it as a 4+ Cover Save but that the actual Rule on the datasheet says as much. The current example datasheet's which use a Ruin Rule only grant Models in a Ruin a 4+ cover save, with a small group stating that in is the same as behind. However, as the rule goes on to state that being 25% Obscured is not required, I feel this is more then enough evidence to show the two are clearly not the same as behind is purely about obscured so such a clause makes no sense. The only way to be less then 25% obscured and have a Ruin Rule function is if it is dictating what happens to Models within a Ruin Boundary. Within that limitation the Rule never mention about what occurs if the shot goes through the terrain known as Ruin to hit something behind it, or if that model happens to be 25% obscured by the Ruin itself, so it is difficult for me to accept that this meets the requirement of 'unless specifically stated otherwise' in the Rules used for Determining cover save of things Obscured.

Unless we want to start arguing that Models Obscured by less then 25% of a Ruin still get a 4+ cover save regardless of it's physical location....

 don_mondo wrote:

BlackTalos wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
@ Black Talos, I believe you are correct re 6th but so far I'm not seeing it for 7th (ie the same cover for vehicles/non-vehicles). It may be what they intended but if so, they need to say it. Re a Bastion, I have no idea, I have yet to acquire the Stronghold Assault so I don't know for sure exactly what it's rules currently say.

Stronghold Assault does not have any definition of cover past what is on page 109 of the BrB, so no help there.
Can you point me to anything (apart from the ruins issue) where the Cover Save value for an Ork is different to the one of a vehicle? Because so far with 7th it seems they are the same. The wording of the paragraph is the same as 6th Ed too, so i see no change?

If you mean cover save based on the example/pictures? Nope. Just the rules that disagree with it. And c'mon, rules vs picture, which one do you think is more likely correct? Back to the Bastion, if it sin't stated that it gives a particular level of cover save for being obscured by it, then the default seems to be 5+.

Agreed for the 5+ on Bastion.

The other part was, you say:

 don_mondo wrote:
so far I'm not seeing it for 7th (ie the same cover for vehicles/non-vehicles)

Could you point me to where the cover are "not the same", because i am quite sure that they are....

As for "rules vs picture, which one do you think is more likely correct?": i would say rules, so the text in "Units in Cover" p37 that says "Orks have a 4+ (...) partially obscured by the ruin.", to confirm ruins at 4+ ?
It references page 108 for this, and probably the title "Ruins".

The text is part of the picture, to try and explain what you are seeing on said picture because those circles would be meaningless without it. It is no more enforceable as Written Rules then if I turned up with a picture of a Land-raider's facing and the number 17 beside each one. This is to say that we always go off the actual Written Rules when it comes to finding out that number, and not what an example claims the number is. In this situation it is actually even easier, for while the Rules give us a base line of 5+ they contain a very important clause which makes Terrain so very simple when it comes to 7th edition:
Each piece of terrain will have a Datasheet containing all the Rules which are valid for that piece of Terrain.

I don't even consider the "Ruins" Rule in the example Datasheets to be some sort of 'universal' Rule as Written for Ruins, there can easily be Datasheet with a Ruin Rule stating it grants a 3+ Cover Save or ones granting a 6+ Cover Save and where does that leave those pictures then?

Jinxdragon beat me to it, our internet is going up and down right now. Yeah, that text on page 37 is a caption to the picture, ie part of the picture and not 'rules'. So my rules vs picture is page 37 picture (to include caption) vice the written rules on page 108 which are, IMO, pretty clear about the whole thing.
The only thing that does seem odd is vehicles and non-vehicles getting different saves, but hey, it's a new rule set and I guess that's one of the changes.

I allured to it but I will our-right ask it now:
If the "Ruin Rule" granting a 4+ Cover Save Triggers for determining the Cover Save of an obscured Model, why doesn't the "regardless if it is 25% or more" section allow us to apply said Rule to Models with only 5% obscured?