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.

I was at an event this weekend and a question came up if a ruins has a base on it and a model is standing on the base but is not obscured at all by the ruins does the model still get a cover save?

I said yes it does because the rules for ruins say that a model in them gets a cover save even if they are not obscured 25%

The other person said no because they have to be at least partially obscured(under 25%) and just being on the ruins base was not good enough because area terrain no longer exists.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I was at an event this weekend and a question came up if a ruins has a base on it and a model is standing on the base but is not obscured at all by the ruins does the model still get a cover save?

I said yes it does because the rules for ruins say that a model in them gets a cover save even if they are not obscured 25%

The other person said no because they have to be at least partially obscured(under 25%) and just being on the ruins base was not good enough because area terrain no longer exists.

What was getting Cover? Vehicle or non-Vehicle?

Vehicles require being obscured 25%, no matter what is in the way. Their own rules on Cover specifically call out Ruins and Woods not affecting them.

However, non-Vehicles do not require such. Ruins very first statement cover this latter part.

It was a non vehicle, sorry forgot to clarify that. The opponent was claiming the base does not count as the ruins only the actual ruin walls.

Though this is the same guy who claimed you could use focused witch fire powers while in close combat and called me a rules lawyer for pointing out that it's still a shooting attack by reading the rules.

If its got a base, and you're standing on it, you get the save.

Did he make you roll a difficult terrain test for your movement before he claimed you wouldnt get a cover save?

Units moving through it did roll difficult terrain, though he neverd I had to he never corrected me for rolling it either.

Well, if you were moving through difficult terrain, logic dictates you would at least get some sort of cover save for standing in said terrain.

The terrain you were standing in was ruins, ergo you get a ruins cover save for standing in it. You wouldnt have moved through difficult if there was no base. This shows that the base is considered to be part of the terrain. The rulebook also says this and has a diagram on pg 37. The orks in red are standing on the ruins base and get a 4+ save. Note however that the diagram explanation states the orks are obscured by the ruins rather than getting cover for standing in it. Pg 108 however states that models in ruins receive a 4+ save whether they are obscured or not. Pg 183 states (at least for GW terrain pieces) that the base is considered part of the model and is affected by rules concerning it.

If you play the individual again, point out that you have to move through difficult to step onto the base of the ruins, and then ask him why it only counts when it's a detriment to yourgame and doesnt count when it's a benefit. Or just show him the rulebook.

'Terrain Types' in the Battlefield Terrain section of the rulebook has the answer for this:

"When one of the following rules refers to a model being ‘in cover behind’ a piece of terrain, this means that the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenery, and therefore eligible for a cover save. 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."

And then, under 'Ruins':

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

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Well, if you were moving through difficult terrain, logic dictates you would at least get some sort of cover save for standing in said terrain.

The terrain you were standing in was ruins, ergo you get a ruins cover save for standing in it. You wouldnt have moved through difficult if there was no base. This shows that the base is considered to be part of the terrain. The rulebook also says this and has a diagram on pg 37. The orks in red are standing on the ruins base and get a 4+ save. Note however that the diagram explanation states the orks are obscured by the ruins rather than getting cover for standing in it. Pg 108 however states that models in ruins receive a 4+ save whether they are obscured or not. Pg 183 states (at least for GW terrain pieces) that the base is considered part of the model and is affected by rules concerning it.

If you play the individual again, point out that you have to move through difficult to step onto the base of the ruins, and then ask him why it only counts when it's a detriment to yourgame and doesnt count when it's a benefit. Or just show him the rulebook.

Apparently that is how the store I was at has decided to rule terrain works, the bases for ruins are difficult terrain but do not provide a cover save.

honestly I think I will just stick to playing people I know as a lot of the rules seems to be completely changed at that store under the comment of that's how we do it here.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
'Terrain Types' in the Battlefield Terrain section of the rulebook has the answer for this:

"When one of the following rules refers to a model being ‘in cover behind’ a piece of terrain, this means that the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenery, and therefore eligible for a cover save. 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."

And then, under 'Ruins':

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

I showed him the relevant rules and was told that is not how they do it and that I was being a rules lawyer.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Well, if you were moving through difficult terrain, logic dictates you would at least get some sort of cover save for standing in said terrain.

The terrain you were standing in was ruins, ergo you get a ruins cover save for standing in it. You wouldnt have moved through difficult if there was no base. This shows that the base is considered to be part of the terrain. The rulebook also says this and has a diagram on pg 37. The orks in red are standing on the ruins base and get a 4+ save. Note however that the diagram explanation states the orks are obscured by the ruins rather than getting cover for standing in it. Pg 108 however states that models in ruins receive a 4+ save whether they are obscured or not. Pg 183 states (at least for GW terrain pieces) that the base is considered part of the model and is affected by rules concerning it.

If you play the individual again, point out that you have to move through difficult to step onto the base of the ruins, and then ask him why it only counts when it's a detriment to yourgame and doesnt count when it's a benefit. Or just show him the rulebook.

Apparently that is how the store I was at has decided to rule terrain works, the bases for ruins are difficult terrain but do not provide a cover save.

honestly I think I will just stick to playing people I know as a lot of the rules seems to be completely changed at that store under the comment of that's how we do it here.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
'Terrain Types' in the Battlefield Terrain section of the rulebook has the answer for this:

"When one of the following rules refers to a model being ‘in cover behind’ a piece of terrain, this means that the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenery, and therefore eligible for a cover save. 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."

And then, under 'Ruins':

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

I showed him the relevant rules and was told that is not how they do it and that I was being a rules lawyer.

I mean... You are? But that's not a bad thing. You're just trying to play the game correctly. (Or at least, officially-nothing wrong with houserules, so long as they're made clear.)

The house rules were not made clear until it was to his advantage for it to happen, and he was meaning the negative connotation that I was digging through the rules for things to exploit for my own advantage.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
The house rules were not made clear until it was to his advantage for it to happen, and he was meaning the negative connotation that I was digging through the rules for things to exploit for my own advantage.

Yeah, I definitely agree that he was being the butt, not you.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I showed him the relevant rules and was told that is not how they do it and that I was being a rules lawyer.

Well, according to Wikipedia, a rules lawyer is "a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment."

By that definition, which I expect would be fairly commonly agreed, I don't think you were being a rules lawyer.

I think your best bet is indeed to stop playing there, unless you enjoy whatever house rules they play by.

Terrain varies WILDLY between clubs. When playing somewhere or someone new, It's really critical to discuss everything about each piece of terrain before anything else happens. It's the first item in ITC mission pregame for a reason.

FWIW, everyone I played at Adepticon agreed a ruin's base was difficult and granted a 4+ cover save. They were even fine with a model's base touching the edge, "toe in", so long as I was explicit and rolled difficult terrain each turn.

Because they're so predominant, I kinda think this makes ruins more powerful than the designers intended, but that's how it is. Hopefully 8th edition clarifies. (Say this in every post for next five months.)

 axisofentropy wrote:
Terrain varies WILDLY between clubs. When playing somewhere or someone new, It's really critical to discuss everything about each piece of terrain before anything else happens. It's the first item in ITC mission pregame for a reason.

Yep, this. It's totally a grey area, so it really pays off to reach an agreement about this stuff before it gets to a point where one person gains an advantage/disadvantage based on it. If something comes up during the game that's been overlooked, I'd say dice off for it and accept the result with good grace.

So what does everyone think about the FAQ green lighting toe/track in cover for everything that isn't a "Flyer, Super-Heavy Vehicle, Flying Monstrous Creature or Gargantuan Creature. All other targets count as being in cover if they are in or on the terrains base, even if not 25% obscured." Is there something I'm missing here?

Wait, so if I have a patch of terrain representing a wood, but it doesn't actually have trees stuck all over it that would block LOS, a tank on the other side from an attacker doesn't get cover?

Alcibiades wrote:
Wait, so if I have a patch of terrain representing a wood, but it doesn't actually have trees stuck all over it that would block LOS, a tank on the other side from an attacker doesn't get cover?

That's up to you and your opponent to decide. The rules are written with Citadel scenery and common types of homemade scenery in mind. In the "Terrain Datasheets" section near the end of the book under "Scratch-Built Terrain" it says that players who make their own terrain need to create datasheets for that terrain. Since your piece of terrain is custom made, and only theoretically represents a wooded area rather than physically, you should also have a custom datasheet for it outlining the rules for how to use it in a game. By default, models only get cover from terrain if they are 25% obscured by it using true line of sight from the firing unit. There are some pieces of terrain that change this slightly, like ruins and debris which allow a 25% cover save to anything that isn't a Vehicle, FMC, or Gargantuan standing in the base regardless of whether they are 25% obscured or not. But for your vehicle, it will always need to be at least 25% obscured to claim a cover save, unless you give your theoretical wooded area a special rule that allows you to claim a 5+ cover save when the shooting attack passes through the wooded terrain's bounds.

The closest thing to a wooded area is GW's "Twisted Copse", which a vehicle on the far side could quite commonly be 25% obscured by, so it's not unreasonable for your terrain to have a special rule that would allow it's theoretical trees to obsure models. The main advantage you would get from this is being able to physically fit more models into the terrain piece, thereby granting cover to more models than a twisted copse would be able to.

 Gibblets wrote:
So what does everyone think about the FAQ green lighting toe/track in cover for everything that isn't a "Flyer, Super-Heavy Vehicle, Flying Monstrous Creature or Gargantuan Creature. All other targets count as being in cover if they are in or on the terrains base, even if not 25% obscured." Is there something I'm missing here?

It sounds like how they handled cover in some older editions.