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.

Breton wrote:
As far as the obscured by ruins, obscured is a vehicle thing, have you guys read the rules for Going to Ground?

Obscured isn't just for vehicles. It's for all models.

Breton wrote:
As far as the obscured by ruins, obscured is a vehicle thing, have you guys read the rules for Going to Ground?

Anything can be obscured by intervening terrain.

Check the "determining cover saves" section of the shooting phase rules

 insaniak wrote:
Cover is anything that obscures the target.

Correct

Intervening terrain obscures the target.

Correct

Unless stated otherwise, cover grants a 5+ cover save.

Correct

Ergo, intervening terrain grants a 5+ cover save, unless the terrain's rules say otherwise.

Incorrect. Intervening terrain grants a cover save based on what the terrain's rules say as ruins give a 4+ cover to models they get a 4+ save.

Ruins specifically grant a 4+ cover save to models IN them.

yes, whether or not they are 25% obscured. Why does being 25% obscured outside of the ruin make it worse that being 25% obscured inside of the ruin (outside of you believing this is what the rules say). The rule works much better when you have the same condition (25% obscured) giving the same outcome.

So, Ruins will grant a 4+ to models in them, and a 5+ to models outside but obscured by them.

And craters give a 6+ cover save to those inside and a 5+ to those outside but obscured. Note to self litter the battlefield with high walled craters.

Again, Why do you think the rules would lead to a situation that gives a model outside of a crater and not obscured no save, out of a crater and obscured a 5+, in a crater and not obscured a 6+, and in a crater and obscured a 6+? When a equally valid but different interpretation gives the same situation no save, 6+, 6+, 6+ respectively. Of course I am going to get back answers of "Because GW can't wright coherent rules" or some such but they can and do wright coherent rules and it is easier to blame GW than to think you could be misinterpreting something

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
Incorrect. Intervening terrain grants a cover save based on what the terrain's rules say as ruins give a 4+ cover to models they get a 4+ save.

Erm, what?

"Unless specifically state otherwise, all cover provides a 5+ save. Some types of terrain provide better or worse cover saves; when this is the case the cover save provided will be stated in the rules for the terrain."

"Ruins: Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured."

Where do the rules for ruins specifically state they grant a save better than 5+ for models other than those that are in the ruins?

yes, whether or not they are 25% obscured. Why does being 25% obscured outside of the ruin make it worse that being 25% obscured inside of the ruin (outside of you believing this is what the rules say). The rule works much better when you have the same condition (25% obscured) giving the same outcome.

Because the rules for ruins only apply to models in ruins, not models outside of but obscured by ruins.

And craters give a 6+ cover save to those inside and a 5+ to those outside but obscured. Note to self litter the battlefield with high walled craters.

No. You can't have it both ways.

"Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured."

"Models in craters receive a 6+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured."

Why would a model obscured by but not actually in ruins receive a 4+ cover save over the standard 5+ but a model obscured by but not actually in craters NOT receive a 6+ over the standard 5+?

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
Why does being 25% obscured outside of the ruin make it worse that being 25% obscured inside of the ruin (outside of you believing this is what the rules say).

Why does there need to be another reason other than 'because the rules say so?'

In this same ruleset, a completely visible model inside a ruin has a cover save. A completely visible model directly behind the ruin does not.

The rules are an abstraction. The way that abstraction has been implemented in this case, I have no issue at all with the idea that a model gets a better save for being in the terrain (where they can make better use of the available cover, which is why the model inside gets a cover save despite being completely visible) than a model outside.

And craters give a 6+ cover save to those inside and a 5+ to those outside but obscured.

Indeed they do. Note the difference in wording between the rules for craters and ruins, and the rules for, say, barricades and walls.

Of course I am going to get back answers of "Because GW can't wright coherent rules" or some such ...

Nope, the issue in this case is nothing to do with writing coherent rules. The rules are clear (although the examples provided do confuse things somewhat). The words used in those rules matter.

If you're granted an improved cover save for being in a piece of terrain, then you get that improved cover save when you're in that terrain. You don't get it when you're not in that terrain.

Because you're not in the terrain.

At this point I doubt you'd ever say it's a 4+. It's clear you're not going to change your mind despite what the rulebook says.

But can you guys tell me why GW modified the examples and the vehicle obscurement rules to specifically say that ruins provide a 4+ save from obscurement, when compared to the previous edition's text?

Colehkxix, your argument seems to be, "Even though the rule for ruins says it counts for models in ruins there are some examples at a different part of the rulebook which suggest otherwise, so it must mean what the examples show rather than the ruins wording itself."

Why are you giving more weight to the examples rather than the rule itself?

Colehkxix wrote:
But can you guys tell me why GW modified the examples and the vehicle obscurement rules to specifically say that ruins provide a 4+ save from obscurement, when compared to the previous edition's text?

No, we can't. Just as we can't tell you why GW wrote any other rule in the book the way they did.

The best we can do is guess as to why they did that. And I've already provided what I believe are the most likely reasons for either potential outcome.


It's entirely possible that you're correct, and the rules were written with the intention of it being a 4+ all of the time. But that's not what they wrote in the actual rules entry for ruins, and so we're left with deciding for ourselves which is the best interpretation to use.

For me, the rules entry will always outweight the examples. That's also the interpretation that provides the least advantageous outcome, which is the other common determiner for unclear rules situations.


You're free to disagree, and if the people you're playing with are happy to go with that interpretation, that's all good.

 insaniak wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
But can you guys tell me why GW modified the examples and the vehicle obscurement rules to specifically say that ruins provide a 4+ save from obscurement, when compared to the previous edition's text?

No, we can't. Just as we can't tell you why GW wrote any other rule in the book the way they did.

The best we can do is guess as to why they did that. And I've already provided what I believe are the most likely reasons for either potential outcome.


It's entirely possible that you're correct, and the rules were written with the intention of it being a 4+ all of the time. But that's not what they wrote in the actual rules entry for ruins, and so we're left with deciding for ourselves which is the best interpretation to use.

For me, the rules entry will always outweight the examples. That's also the interpretation that provides the least advantageous outcome, which is the other common determiner for unclear rules situations.


You're free to disagree, and if the people you're playing with are happy to go with that interpretation, that's all good.

Well. It's not really all good. It causes unnecessary problems between players that should never have existed in the first place. Which just puts me off of playing the game, so I start looking at alternatives.

I'd agree that it doesn't say directly under the ruins entry. However it doesn't conflict with the examples. Just because it doesn't say directly under the Ruins entry, doesn't mean it doesn't say it elsewhere in the book. And the examples in the book clearly point towards obscurement giving you a cover save equal to what the cover provides. I can't really bring myself to play with someone who disagrees, which might make sticking to the game even more difficult than it already is.

Colehkxix wrote:
I can't really bring myself to play with someone who disagrees, which might make sticking to the game even more difficult than it already is.

Indeed, that sounds like 40K (or anything made by GW) is probably not the game for you, because you are going to run into disagreements over rules that you think are perfectly clear.

 insaniak wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
I can't really bring myself to play with someone who disagrees, which might make sticking to the game even more difficult than it already is.

Indeed, that sounds like 40K (or anything made by GW) is probably not the game for you, because you are going to run into disagreements over rules that you think are perfectly clear.

Unfortunately this isn't the only rule that I believe is clearly written that those at the games store I go to seem to argue over.

Any recommendations?

Not really the right thread for that discussion...

Colehkxix wrote:Unfortunately this isn't the only rule that I believe is clearly written that those at the games store I go to seem to argue over.

Any recommendations?

insaniak wrote:Not really the right thread for that discussion...

I think once a discussion of this kind reaches this sort of conclusion we should be referring to 'The Most Important Rule':

"If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply for the remainder of the game..."

It's not generally relevant to discussions on this forum because of course we're not "wasting valuable gaming time" as referred to earlier in the rule; this forum exists to have the in-depth discussions we don't want (and hopefully appropriately avoid) during actual games.