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:
"Implicit" - So, you can't actually prove your case using rules, but you think that's how it should work and that's good enough for you? Ok, fine, go ahead, feel free to play it that way, just don't pretend your house rule is the only way to play it. I am constantly annoyed by self-righteous players who come onto forums and complain that everyone playing by the rules is doing it wrong, please don't be one of those people.

Andrew said it. He's acknowledging the issue is a grey area, elucidating the logic behind his thinking, and is being anything but self-righteous.

Plus, as tehjonny points out, the OP's opponent wasn't even in area terrain, so should have have a +1 bonus and failed the save.

Yes, in this case, the model wasn't in area terrain so he wouldn't have had a 2+ save, I guess I've been responding to other comments and I've derailed this thread into a slightly tangential topic. My apologies.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Implicit" - So, you can't actually prove your case using rules, but you think that's how it should work and that's good enough for you? Ok, fine, go ahead, feel free to play it that way, just don't pretend your house rule is the only way to play it. I am constantly annoyed by self-righteous players who come onto forums and complain that everyone playing by the rules is doing it wrong, please don't be one of those people.

Having had a look through the BRB last night, I think I can prove it using the words. Following on from my previous post about being allowed 1 save:

Granted you can have ruins that are also area terrain. But this does not increase the save of that area terrain to a 4+. The save for ruins is a 4+, and the save for area terrain is 5+. These are still separate saves. It does not become 'ruined area terrain' or anything like that, the book does not allow or discuss mixing types of cover in this manner (I don't think? Point me to something if I'm wrong by all means). I can't find anything that discusses modifying cover saves based upon mixing of terrain types in a single piece.

So actually, to agree before a game that something is ruins, but also area terrain, is pointless within the rules. The area terrain save will be worse and nobody will select it from their available range of saves. If it ruins within a forest for example, if you're inside the ruins it's a 4+ with a 1+ GTG, and if you're just outside the ruins it's a 5+ with a 2+ GTG. 3+ either way. If you're in the doorway of something, you're in something.

You are not 'obscured', those are vehicles rules. It's not an intervening unit or anything like that either (and I'm not convinced that would add a 1+ in this case anyway). People are trying to over-complicate the cover rules in 6th for personal benefit (I don't blame them, but IMO it isn't kosher). You do not get to stack your cover saves as far as I'm aware. If you're in area terrain, you get the cover save that applies. If you're behind it from the perspective of the firers, you get that cover save. If you're in the ruins, you get the ruins cover save. These can have modifiers applied to them in certain situations, but they are still distinct saves.

I don't smoke in the doorway of my kitchen and claim I'm in the garden :p.

So if a model goes to ground in industrial ooze but chooses to take a cover save from being obscured by a piece of terrain doesn't have to take a toughness test?
You're saying that a unit can only be affected by one piece of terrain at a time, but that is not how the rules work. You don't get to pick and choose which pieces of terrain affect your models, or your opponent's models, they are affected by all terrain that has an effect on them.

As far as area terrain being on ruins being pointless, yes there is a point besides the better going to ground bonus, your cover saves from ruins are directional, you only get them by being obscured and they can be ignored by barrage weapons and other attacks and special rules that ignore directional cover, cover saves from area terrain are not. So if an opponent has clear line of sight to your model or is shooting barrage weapons at it, it still has that 5+ cover save if it's on the base of the ruins, instead of not having any.

"You are not 'obscured', those are vehicles rules." - Maybe you should re-read the cover save rules on page 18, non-vehicles and vehicles both follow the obscurement rules.
"You do not get to stack your cover saves as far as I'm aware." - I am not trying to stack my saves, I am trying to apply the effects of the terrain affecting my model.

"I don't smoke in the doorway of my kitchen and claim I'm in the garden :p." - But if you're in the kitchen are you not in the kitchen and also in your house?

Tbh Im surprised anyone uses the random terrain rules as they throw up all sorts of stupid scenarios. For example, if a model is partially obscured by a fuel dump, no matter how far away he is, he and his unit can take a hit from the fuel dump exploding.

Being completely consistent here, if the figure wants to take a cover save from another piece of terrain that is better, I would not ask them to take the toughness test. This could represent them throwing themselves onto the banks of the pond rather than into the slime itself.

Cheers

Andrew