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.

Somebody pointed this out on another forum, wondered what you thought:

Q: If a unit is in multiple different types of cover, which
cover save is used? (p22)
A: Whichever has the highest number of models in, or the
best in a tie (as long as over half the unit is in some kind
of cover).

Am I reading this correctly in that a unit with two cover saves can be forced to take a worse save than if they just qualified for a better one? Here's an example of a situation: a unit of Hive Guard are blocked by an intervening unit of gaunts. 2 of the three hive guard are obscured from the shooter, granting them a 4+ cover save. Now add a Venomthrope directly BEHIND the Hive Guard. All three are within range of the Vthrope's cover save...now they only have a 5+ cover save?

Yes, that would seem to be correct.

Hmm. I don't see this ruling as applying to that situation. I would think that the hive guard in your example would get the 4+ because two of them have 4+ cover and one of them has 5+. The majority of the models are eligible for the higher save so you can use it.

andruin wrote:Am I reading this correctly in that a unit with two cover saves can be forced to take a worse save than if they just qualified for a better one? Here's an example of a situation: a unit of Hive Guard are blocked by an intervening unit of gaunts. 2 of the three hive guard are obscured from the shooter, granting them a 4+ cover save. Now add a Venomthrope directly BEHIND the Hive Guard. All three are within range of the Vthrope's cover save...now they only have a 5+ cover save?

In your example, even with this ruling, I would allow the 4+ since the majority of the squad is covered by it.

I can see our store house ruling this pretty quick.

in his example, the majority of the squad(i.e. All of the squad) is in a 5+ cover save; therefore according to the FAQ he is forced to take the 5+(since less than 100% of the models is in the 4+)

I do foresee that this will be ignored for this specific type of situation(Venomthrope, or Mekboy KFF) and only ever applied when 1 unit has 50% or more of it's model behind some sort of cover(say a low wall and a Fence) but more models are behind the lighter cover(fence) then behind the heavier cover(wall).

As others have said the example is invalidated since the 2 with the 4+ cover save have the 5+ as well and it that case those two have a 4+ being the better of the two. Now you look at 2 with a 4+ and 1 with a 5+ so you take the 4+ since it has more.

A unit of Guardians with a Warlock.
The Warlock and 8 Guardians are standing behind a chest-high fortification, two Guardians are unable to find sufficient cover behind the fortification.

Situation 1: The Warlock has Destructor, the squad gains a 3+ cover save as normal.
Situation 2: The Warlock has Conceal, granting the entire squad a 5+ cover save, yet 9 of 11 models are in 3+ cover.
Situation 3: Around the fortification there is high grass. The entire squad is standing in the high grass (5+ cover), but 9 out of 11 are also standing behind the fortification.

Keep in mind also that KFF venomthropes and the like aren't actually 'cover' they just grant the save.

ChrisCP wrote:Keep in mind also that KFF venomthropes and the like aren't actually 'cover' they just grant the save.

That is a very, very good point and one that resolves this entire issue. All 3 of the items listed in this thread (Venomthropes, Ork KFFs & Eldar Conceal) are all special rules that simply grant a cover save...they do not make the units protected by them count as being in cover.

The FAQ question and answer as written only covers when a unit is in different kinds of cover simultaneously, so would not apply to these special rules.

__ Nvm wrong one, my bad haha.

If 2 of the 3 units had a 4 up and 5 up cover save they would ignore the 5 up cover save (You have to take the best save you have, the 4 up in this case). In total you would have 2 with a 4 up and 1 with a 5 up, they would all receive the 4 up as a result.

...thats a horribly difficult post to understand and doesn't seem to mesh with the new FAQ rules for which cover save one can take.

I agree with ignoring this FAQ.

Imagine you have 90% of your models hiding behind a 3+ cover save. I take my models and move them behind some area terrain that grants a 6+.

If I shoot at you, 100% of your models have a 6+ cover save and 90% have a 3+. Now, wouldn't you argue the 3+ save should apply, and not the 6+? Why would it be easier to hit someone when you add more objects in the way?

You take the best cover save that applies to at least 50% of the squad.

If a unit has more than one cover save, then it uses the best one. In the case in Grakmar's post, the unit has both a 3+ cover save, as 90% is in 3+ cover, and a 6+ cover save, as 100% of the unit is 6+ cover. They would take the 3+ cover save, as it is the best one.

If, from a third source, 45% of the unit is covered by 2+ cover, and 40% by 5+ cover, then the FAQ ruling kicks in, as the majority of the unit is in a sort of cover, and a plurality of it is in 2+ cover.

Cover is granted by any number of sources, and a unit can have multiple cover saves by the rules - it just gets to pick the best one. It's poorly written, for sure, but I think I salvaged it.

See my situation 3. Also, here's another slowed situation:

A unit of Loyalist Devastators wishes to shoot on a squad of 8 Chaos Space Marines. The Chaos troops are standing inside a fortification which provides 3+ cover for even a Chaos Daemon Prince, and has "fire point" openings, but it does not have a roof so it's not a building, merely a wall.

The Devastators are shooting at the Chaos Marines from the side, so they can see most of the Chaos Marines while one of the Chaos Marines does not have any cover, thus the Chaos player enjoys a 3+ cover save.

The Loyalists are then struck by a flash of pure genius and moves a squad of Loyalist Scouts between the Chaos models and the Devastator models, thus the Chaos models are all obscured by the Loyalist Scouts. 7 of the Chaos models have 3+ cover save while 8 of them have 4+ cover save.

Thus, by obscuring the targeted squad, the enemy suffers a penalty to their cover save.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:If a unit has more than one cover save, then it uses the best one. In the case in Grakmar's post, the unit has both a 3+ cover save, as 90% is in 3+ cover, and a 6+ cover save, as 100% of the unit is 6+ cover. They would take the 3+ cover save, as it is the best one.

If, from a third source, 45% of the unit is covered by 2+ cover, and 40% by 5+ cover, then the FAQ ruling kicks in, as the majority of the unit is in a sort of cover, and a plurality of it is in 2+ cover.

Cover is granted by any number of sources, and a unit can have multiple cover saves by the rules - it just gets to pick the best one. It's poorly written, for sure, but I think I salvaged it.

Well, you salvaged it by ignoring what they actually wrote and just using what they should have wrote.

But, I'm in complete agreement with this change!

The question is about units in multiple types of cover, not about when units have multiple types of cover saves.

Subtleties of language that make those two statements not equivalent almost makes me want to be a linguist.

Q: If a unit is in multiple different types of cover, which
cover save is used? (p22)
A: Whichever has the highest number of models in, or the
best in a tie (as long as over half the unit is in some kind
of cover).

Mostly irrelevant FAQ ruling is mostly irrelevant. In most situations you just use the rule that is already clearly printed.

BRB p.24

"If a unit can benefit from different types of cover, for example being behind a hedge (5+ cover save) and a low wall (4+), the unit uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+)."

If a unit can benefit from cover because it is in area terrain, then all of the models are 'in cover'.
If a unit is eligible to benefit from multiple types of 'special' cover, then all of the models are in multiple types of 'special' cover (KFF, Venomthrope, Conceal etc. in addition to area or LOS granted cover saves).
If it's a tie, the best available cover save is used.

If 'in cover' only applies to models that are individually in cover, then examples that involve screening units are equally irrelevant - granting a save does not mean that the unit is suddenly 'in' or for any purpose 'occupying' cover.

If 'in cover' refers to any cover save that has been granted, then the FAQ ruling is effectively stating the opposite of what the rulebook clearly says. It's either nonsense or a rule change, which it clearly isn't intended to be.

IMO this is where the new FAQ ruling would actually apply:
A unit of ten Space Marines are in the open. From a firing unit's line of sight, two marines are behind a low wall (4+ cover) and three marines are behind a hedge (5+ cover). 50% of the models that make up the unit 'in cover' and thus the unit receives a cover save, but because the majority of those qualifying models are in the coverage position granted by the hedge a save of 5+ is granted.

For pretty much everything else, use the BRB rule.

I'm in complete agreement with how Arctik_Firangi states the rule should read.

So, let's all agree that we'll ignore this FAQ-as-written and pretend is says what it should say.

Let us never speak of this again!

so in the original example using the faq and BRB

two of the nids have a 4+ & 5+ cover save, one nid has a 5+ cover save, as you only get one cover save and the BRB specifiies the best, you roll a 4+ cover because the majority of the models (66%) have a 4+

Grakmar wrote:I'm in complete agreement with how Arctik_Firangi states the rule should read.

So, let's all agree that we'll ignore this FAQ-as-written and pretend is says what it should say.

Let us never speak of this again!

Indeed. That particular FAQ is completely inconsistent with the rest of the rules for saves that it's sad to see.

You don't need to ignore the FAQ. If a model in a unit gets multiple cover saves it ignores all but the best one. So in the ops example he has 2 models with 4+ and 1 unit with 5+, not 2 with 4+/5+ and 1 with 5+.

Yeah, I think there's some confusion here as to how this actually applies.

They're not talking about models having more than one cover save. That's covered by the existing rules. If a particular model has access to multiple different cover saves, they use the best.

The FAQ is talking about units with models in different cover, not models in multiple types of cover. So a unit with, for example, 3 models being a wall, and 4 behind a hedge... Assuming the whole unit in LOS, they would receive the cover save from the hedge, as more models are in that cover.

But when working out how many models are in which type of cover, if the firer's LOS to any given model passes over both the hedge and the wall, that model would count as being behind the wall, as that's the better save.

So it's not a case of needing to ignore the FAQ ro let the original rule work as ... they're simply dealing with two slightly different things.

OP - Someone said it right, two models have a 4+ cover, one has a 5+, so the majority goes. Each model only ever gets 1 save or one cover save.

The purpose of this ruling was more for one large unit straddling two (or more!) different sources of cover. Say half is in scrub giving them 5+ cover save and the others are in ruins, getting a 4+ cover save. Debates used to go between: A) It should be the cover from the majority of the models, or B) from the direction of the firer, or C) from the models actually removed.