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.

"hWy does it contains the word 'can still Go to Ground' as if it is giving you permission outside of cover? "

Because it is reminding you that you can improve a - cover save to a 6+.

This is because adding 1 to - means nothing.

"Also: Why do they use the word saving throw if they didn't mean saving throw?"

the mean Saving throw, as in the value of said Saving Throw...

Why does this paragraph exist under it's own bullet point if it is just an extension of the rule above it, aka a reminder?
By extension, why are we seeing bullet points at all if they are only trying to put forth one possible outcome of going to ground?

I agree that a d6+1 vs - would be impossible, but if we read the second paragraph as part of the rules then it isn't an issue. We won't need some long logical argument to grant us permission to rewrite the +1 as a -1. This paragraph is already giving us the option of taking the going to ground bonus as a 6+ save outright. It has the added advantage that we don't need to change any of the going to ground rules in order to do it.

The saving throw value is defined by rolling a D6 which is then comparing it to an already existing save characteristic. If I was to modify a saving throw, I would be modifying the results of the dice. In such case the format of +1 makes perfect sense and this is the format used within the going to ground rules. In your case we have to make a logical argument to give us pseudo-permission to rewrite the book to make that +1 into -1 to apply it to something they didn't even mention in the going to ground rules, the save characteristic.

I have occam's razor here, want me to apply it to both arguments?

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

Drager wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

I ment paragraph, my bad. It's granted permission to use the +2 on the 5+ from the Area Terrain as its in the same paragraph under the Rule listing for Area Terrain.

Happyjew wrote:Until a third option is added, I refuse to vote. My group already plays that every level of ruins count as area terrain with the exception of the g2g bonus (so a model in plain site right on top of a ruin will have a 5+ cover save). This also means that if a ruin does not hae a base but a model is within the footprint they have a 5+ cover save (nobody cleaned up the debris). We also generally play no cover from the base if outside the footprint. Unfortunately, nobody has tried going to ground while in area terrain and obscured by the ruin.

Well your group is not playing by the rules, but by their own house rules, which are only relevant in your gaming group, not on this forum.

fossing wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
This whole "their cover save" argument is silly. It's a bit of a logical leap to assume simply because it came after the line that says they get a 5+ cover save, that it refers to that cover save alone, rather than the more general "their cover save" meaning the one they are currently using.

And its not a logical leap to assume that it doesnt ? Well i think so, and untill a FAQ is out, i probably wont be convinced otherwise, unless someone here holds a phd in English grammar.

I'm not saying it isn't, nearly all reasoning requires making a logical leap at one point or another, I'm just saying that it's more of a leap to assume the sentence means "their cover save granted by area terrain" than simply "their cover save" which is what the rule actually states. When using deductive reasoning, it is generally the smallest leap that we take. for example: "There are no native Irish snakes today, this is because any on the landmass moved to England before it separated from Ireland or died out in the latest ice age" is a more logical line of reasoning than "There are no native Irish snakes today, this is because St. Patrick chased them all out Ireland while he was offing the dragons."

fossing wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
ignores cover saves granted by area terrain

Im trying to find a weapon or unit that have this special rule, but cant seem to find it.

That was a joke in reference to straw marine Bob.

Bausk wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

I ment paragraph, my bad. It's granted permission to use the +2 on the 5+ from the Area Terrain as its in the same paragraph under the Rule listing for Area Terrain.

You mean the area terrain rules? Of course it's in the same paragraph as the cover save for area terrain, it's a rule about area terrain. Also in said paragraph is "Area Terrain is always difficult terrain" does this have any bearing on the rule?

 Bausk wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

I ment paragraph, my bad. It's granted permission to use the +2 on the 5+ from the Area Terrain as its in the same paragraph under the Rule listing for Area Terrain.

No, it grants permission to get +2 instead of +1. There is nothing stating that is ONLY to the cover save granted by area terrain - that is your inference.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Until a third option is added, I refuse to vote. My group already plays that every level of ruins count as area terrain with the exception of the g2g bonus (so a model in plain site right on top of a ruin will have a 5+ cover save). This also means that if a ruin does not hae a base but a model is within the footprint they have a 5+ cover save (nobody cleaned up the debris). We also generally play no cover from the base if outside the footprint. Unfortunately, nobody has tried going to ground while in area terrain and obscured by the ruin.

Well your group is not playing by the rules, but by their own house rules, which are only relevant in your gaming group, not on this forum.

Never said we were playing by the rules. In fact I never said my stance was a RAW one (I tried to make it clear that it was HIPI). And sometimes, the way people actually play it is just as important as what the rule actually says.

Being in the same paragraph is implicit, not explicit, permission. The explicit permission is to improve "their cover save" it does not state this cover save or their cover save provided by area terrain.

Their cover save means the one they are using when the time comes to save wounds.

When determining (cover) saves, if you have multiple, you are instructed to use the best (in case of saves, the lowest numerical value).

If someone is in area terrain but obscured by ruins, they get both a 5+ and a 4+ cover save.

The best is obviously the 4+ (not it is lower numerically), so that is the one they will use, i.e. _their_ cover save.

GtG improves that.

 Shandara wrote:
Their cover save means the one they are using when the time comes to save wounds.

When determining (cover) saves, if you have multiple, you are instructed to use the best (in case of saves, the lowest numerical value).

If someone is in area terrain but obscured by ruins, they get both a 5+ and a 4+ cover save.

The best is obviously the 4+ (not it is lower numerically), so that is the one they will use, i.e. _their_ cover save.

GtG improves that.

Agreed

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

I ment paragraph, my bad. It's granted permission to use the +2 on the 5+ from the Area Terrain as its in the same paragraph under the Rule listing for Area Terrain.

No, it grants permission to get +2 instead of +1. There is nothing stating that is ONLY to the cover save granted by area terrain - that is your inference.

In context that was in response to someone that asked 'where is there permission given for it to be applied to the Area Terrain cover save'. However as its in the rules for Area Terrain if we read it black and white like the rule book reads it is a singular phrasing because your only looking at one Cover Save at that point, the Area Terrain one. Its a larger and more stretched leap of logic to presume it applies to what ever cover save you use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:
Being in the same paragraph is implicit, not explicit, permission. The explicit permission is to improve "their cover save" it does not state this cover save or their cover save provided by area terrain.

As I've said, its explicit as its under a single rule listing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

jazzpaintball wrote:
The GtG rule in area terrain says that you get +2 in area terrain. Does this apply to another cover save? or only the 5+ area terrain save?

The GTG in area terrain rule actually says "Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." (91)

So if a model is in area terrain and that model GTG it receives +2 to its cover save.

A model can have more than one cover save.

If you are sufficiently obscured by a ruin you have a 4+ cover save, and if you are also in area terrain and go to ground you get a +2 to the cover save. A 2+ cover save is possible in this instance.

This is how I've always interpretted it.

 Bausk wrote:
As I've said, its explicit as its under a single rule listing.

"Area terrain is always difficult terrain.
Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are obscured.
Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1."

I'm not sure where you're getting this 1 rule thing here, because the way I read you've got 3 distinct rules explaining different aspects of area terrain.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
As I've said, its explicit as its under a single rule listing.

"Area terrain is always difficult terrain.
Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are obscured.
Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1."

I'm not sure where you're getting this 1 rule thing here, because the way I read you've got 3 distinct rules explaining different aspects of area terrain.

One rule listing (something listed or included in a list). As in the rules for Area Terrain.

 Bausk wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
It's permission to be used with the Area Terrain cover save is granted under its rules, as previously mentioned its used in the same sentence as the cover save itself.

It is not in the same sentence, you might have a better case if it were.

I ment paragraph, my bad. It's granted permission to use the +2 on the 5+ from the Area Terrain as its in the same paragraph under the Rule listing for Area Terrain.

No, it grants permission to get +2 instead of +1. There is nothing stating that is ONLY to the cover save granted by area terrain - that is your inference.

In context that was in response to someone that asked 'where is there permission given for it to be applied to the Area Terrain cover save'. However as its in the rules for Area Terrain if we read it black and white like the rule book reads it is a singular phrasing because your only looking at one Cover Save at that point, the Area Terrain one. Its a larger and more stretched leap of logic to presume it applies to what ever cover save you use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:
Being in the same paragraph is implicit, not explicit, permission. The explicit permission is to improve "their cover save" it does not state this cover save or their cover save provided by area terrain.

As I've said, its explicit as its under a single rule listing.

That is implicit,as in implied by context, not explicit as in stated permission. The explicit permission is for use with "their cover save", which is whatever cover save they are using, not any particular one.

Bausk wrote:

As I've said, its explicit as its under a single rule listing.

Wrong,t hat is at best *implicit*

Explicit would be "the cover save granted by area terrain is improved by +2". That is explicit
Implicit is you inferring that, because the rule apppears under the rules for Area terrain that any reference to "cover save" may only apply to the cover save granted by cover save. However "their" cover save is, explicitly "their" save used at the time they make a cover save, meaning it is, explicitly, whatever value "their" save is that gets improved.

You are taking your inference and overriding an explicit referent, which is unsafe. In otherwords, you have created a restriction where none exists

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In otherwords, you have created a restriction where none exists

Except that little rule for only using one Save. If you are using one save, what rules would you use for it? I'd like to think that most people would use the rules for that save and not for others, but it seems people like to mix and match these rules to gain a benefit. If there was a rule giving permission to mix saves and/or their rules than yes, it would be implicit. But as there is not, its an explicit instruction as its under the single saves rule listing. Meaning the fact that it says 'their' rather than 'the Area Terrain' Cover save is irrelevant.

 Bausk wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In otherwords, you have created a restriction where none exists

Except that little rule for only using one Save. If you are using one save, what rules would you use for it? I'd like to think that most people would use the rules for that save and not for others, but it seems people like to mix and match these rules to gain a benefit. If there was a rule giving permission to mix saves and/or their rules than yes, it would be implicit. But as there is not, its an explicit instruction as its under the single saves rule listing. Meaning the fact that it says 'their' rather than 'the Area Terrain' Cover save is irrelevant.

This assumes that the rule for the bonus, and the rule for the save are the same rule. Something you have yet to prove. If they are not the same rule, your argument falls apart. Considering they are different sentences talking about different situations (one talks about a save for being somewhere, the other talks about a modifier for doing something), I find it hard to read it as one rule.

 Bausk wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In otherwords, you have created a restriction where none exists

Except that little rule for only using one Save. If you are using one save, what rules would you use for it? I'd like to think that most people would use the rules for that save and not for others, but it seems people like to mix and match these rules to gain a benefit. If there was a rule giving permission to mix saves and/or their rules than yes, it would be implicit. But as there is not, its an explicit instruction as its under the single saves rule listing. Meaning the fact that it says 'their' rather than 'the Area Terrain' Cover save is irrelevant.

Except you don't choose which set of rules that include a cover save to use, you choose which cover save to use, otherwise you wouldn't be able to add stealth and shrouded to your cover save since they are sets of rules that include a cover save. Lets say you have a Daemon(s) of Nurlge behind a barbed fence and Night Fighting is in effect, a unit of Marines is 20 inches away and shoots at your unit, after rolling to hit and wound, you choose to go to ground. To determine the cover save of your unit you are now using the rules for Tanglewire/razor wire, Daemon of Nurgle/Shrouded, Night Fighting/Stealth, and Go to Ground to figure out your cover save. "a model only ever gets to make one saving throw." means you can only ever roll your save once, not that you use only set of rules to figure out what that save is.

cryhavok wrote:
This assumes that the rule for the bonus, and the rule for the save are the same rule. Something you have yet to prove. If they are not the same rule, your argument falls apart. Considering they are different sentences talking about different situations (one talks about a save for being somewhere, the other talks about a modifier for doing something), I find it hard to read it as one rule.

Not quite, they are the same rule listing.

There are only two reasons you would read the rule listing for Area Terrain under the rule process.

1) If you are moving though it in any way.

2) If you are taking it as your Saving Throw. Which would also be the only time you would GtG as its an extension of the Cover Save rules.

Talking strictly in a process perspective the only time the GtG +2 bonus would apply is when you are using the Area Terrain Cover Save as your Saving Throw as that is the save you are using. If however you were to use a Wall instead then you would look up the rule listing for the wall and use its rules. You don't then go 'But wait this other saves rules has a bonus that could make this Wall even better' because that would be using the Area Terrains rules for a Wall.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Except you don't choose which set of rules that include a cover save to use, you choose which cover save to use, otherwise you wouldn't be able to add stealth and shrouded to your cover save since they are sets of rules that include a cover save. Lets say you have a Daemon(s) of Nurlge behind a barbed fence and Night Fighting is in effect, a unit of Marines is 20 inches away and shoots at your unit, after rolling to hit and wound, you choose to go to ground. To determine the cover save of your unit you are now using the rules for Tanglewire/razor wire, Daemon of Nurgle/Shrouded, Night Fighting/Stealth, and Go to Ground to figure out your cover save. "a model only ever gets to make one saving throw." means you can only ever roll your save once, not that you use only set of rules to figure out what that save is.

You choose the best save from all available and use its rules to the exclusion of all others as they were discarded from the previous step. Slightly different to what you think I'm saying.
Stealth and Shrouded are universal special rules that specifically state they apply to all cover saves, they are acceptable modifiers as they are modifiers granted by a special rule or wargear. They are not a save in of them selves.

Also missing what I'm saying again. If you are using the best save available, you would be using its rules. You wouldn't be using the Daemon USRs invulnerable save in that instance so you wouldn't even look at its rules. The base save rules (in you example: Tanglewire) would be your saves rules. External modifiers can be applied from special rules and/or wargear (night fighting, camo cloaks etc) as per the rules. Area Terrain is not a special rule, it is both terrain and a cover save. It has a rule under its listing that alters the GtG bonus yes, but it is still not a special rule in of itself.

Why are you using a process perspective? It doesn't apply, nowhere do the rules tell you to do so.

Although even under your own logic there is another reason to look at the area terrain rules, going to ground in area terrain is a reason to look there n and of my itself.

I am using a single save, which is "my" or "their" save, given the grammar required to reference the model.

"Their" save is improved by +2, by GtG in area terrain

Explciit proof that your made up restriction is, in fact, made up.

Bausk: Please enlighten me as to the parts of the rulebook that tell you ignore all rules pertaining to a piece of terrain when using the cover save of a different piece of terrain.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Please enlighten me as to the parts of the rulebook that tell you ignore all rules pertaining to a piece of terrain when using the cover save of a different piece of terrain.

Who is that directed at?

Bausk, from context and history

So has anyone seen this in a tourney and had a TO ruled one way or the other.

The vote is so damn close. A vote to get a school district more money can not even be decided with a vote this close....

jazzpaintball wrote:
So has anyone seen this in a tourney and had a TO ruled one way or the other.

The vote is so damn close. A vote to get a school district more money can not even be decided with a vote this close....

Does it really matter? I mean, TOs generally aren't rules experts, and back when I played competitive card games I had plenty of TOs and even judges make incorrect rulings.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

jazzpaintball wrote:
So has anyone seen this in a tourney and had a TO ruled one way or the other.

The vote is so damn close. A vote to get a school district more money can not even be decided with a vote this close....

Does it really matter? I mean, TOs generally aren't rules experts, and back when I played competitive card games I had plenty of TOs and even judges make incorrect rulings.

Agreed, and I know I have done the same thing.

The problem is that as being a consistent TO, I want to make sure that all of my rulings are correct. That is why I am curious if anyone knew of other TO's rulings. Not that they are right or wrong, but out of curiosity.

NVM not enough coffee yet