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'm with the people who think that shooting me through a building and 100 feet of thick woods is a near immpossible shot. And the way I interpret the rules raw supports this. The other interpretation seems silly and grasping to me. So in my eyes raw, rai, and hiwpi all agree that it would be a 2+ cover save. I'm not going to repeat arguments that have already been made though... At least not until I have my brb in front of me.

Everyone's welcome to play it however they want, but be sure to check with your T.O. and/or opponent because a LOT of people play it 3+.

Cmdr Hindsight wrote:

Bausk wrote: The rules for the Area Terrain Cover Save alter the GTG bonus, these rules do not magically jump to another Cover Saves rules because by doing so you are using more than one Save.

I've read your numerous posts and can see the logic behind your argument but still disagree. I have not stated how I intend to play area terrain with ruins in any way shape or form. Until there is a FAQ to clarify this matter it is something I will discuss with opponent. I am however confused as to why a +1 or +2 to cover would not carry over to the cover which obscures your model. Are you implying that because my Tau vehicles lost the "stealth" special rule and gained "+1 to cover" that this now only applies when My tank is out in the open? Would this not stack with my Jink save or any intervening cover obscuring my tank?

Not at all, Camo cloaks work just the same as the Tau +1 cover save, they are granted from Wargear and Special rules which are specifically allowed bonus's to the Cover Save you are using. They are not rules from a separate Cover Save being transplanted to the Cover Save your models is using.

Posted a poll for it to see the opinion of the masses.

Loopy and Bausk we both know how you guys play it despite the lack of rules supporting your all's arguments. IMHO it needs faq'd. However, as it stands currently RAW its a 2+ cover save. It is also how I would play it.

 Tomb King wrote:
Posted a poll for it to see the opinion of the masses.

Loopy and Bausk we both know how you guys play it despite the lack of rules supporting your all's arguments. IMHO it needs faq'd. However, as it stands currently RAW its a 2+ cover save. It is also how I would play it.

I would have to agree with you because the RAW even states, gtg in area terrain gives a +2 to THEIR cover save, not a +2 to area terrain cover saves. Which implies RAI that the +2 bonus can be added to their best cover save, which is exactly how stealth and shrouded works where the bonus is given to their best cover save. Be easier if they just said gtg in Area terrain should be treated as shrouded or something to avoid confusion or add better clarification.

 deadrifler wrote:
I would have to agree with you because the RAW even states, gtg in area terrain gives a +2 to THEIR cover save, not a +2 to area terrain cover saves. Which implies RAI that the +2 bonus can be added to their best cover save, which is exactly how stealth and shrouded works where the bonus is given to their best cover save. Be easier if they just said gtg in Area terrain should be treated as shrouded or something to avoid confusion or add better clarification.

It's a circular argument at this point.

Either you believe you can take the +2 out of context or you don't. I interpret it that you cannot, partially due to the other singular reference to "cover save" in the passage which, when also taken out of context, breaks the game more than leaving the +2 in context does.

Either you believe you can take the +2 out of context or you don't. I interpret it that you cannot, partially due to the other singular reference to "cover save" in the passage which, when also taken out of context, breaks the game more than leaving the +2 in context does.

We'll just have to cross our fingers for a FAQ or maybe someone can make some headway at GamesDay regarding the issue.

That would be most pleasant. Hopefully this months 13th will include a main rule book FAQ. I'm not gonna hold my breath though. LOL

 Tomb King wrote:
Posted a poll for it to see the opinion of the masses.

Loopy and Bausk we both know how you guys play it despite the lack of rules supporting your all's arguments. IMHO it needs faq'd. However, as it stands currently RAW its a 2+ cover save. It is also how I would play it.

Funny that you state that there is a 'lack of rules' supporting our stand point, given that the only rule citation you have given is in the rules for a Cover Save and the Rules I've given state you are only allowed the use of one Save but give no permission to mix one Saves rules with another. I've also never stated that your stand point doesn't have merit. Point of fact I can see how it can be misinterpreted to be used with other saves, however to me the rules do not state to use more than one Save so I see no reason to look at any other Saves rules other than the one you are using.

 Loopy wrote:
That would be most pleasant. Hopefully this months 13th will include a main rule book FAQ. I'm not gonna hold my breath though. LOL

Hmm, not sure if you know anything of Blizzard, but we'll go with Soon™

Bausk - it is a leap because you are inferring that the "+2 to cover save" is "+2 to the cover save provided by area terrain"

That is, and remains, your leap. Nothing you can say or do will alter that the current written rules do not support your position, so a FAQ will be needed

If it helps I am TOing a small tourney in a weeks time, and we decided at the outset that we would play it as a 3+, as a 2+ seemed abusive.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - it is a leap because you are inferring that the "+2 to cover save" is "+2 to the cover save provided by area terrain"

That is, and remains, your leap. Nothing you can say or do will alter that the current written rules do not support your position, so a FAQ will be needed

If it helps I am TOing a small tourney in a weeks time, and we decided at the outset that we would play it as a 3+, as a 2+ seemed abusive.

So if you don't get the +2 bonus from area terrain where do you get it from? Cause in my rule book it states that if you GTG in Area Terrain you get a +2 to their cover save rather than the +1 under the sub-heading "Area Terrain". Doesn't sound like a leap if its written plain as day in the rules for Area Terrain.

Really though, I'm just going to assume you intended to say that I'm inferring that it's a "+2 to the Area Terrains Cover Save only". To which I've already provided the relevant rules citations and explained my position. As I've said in my previous post; I understand your sides position and even see how you can draw the conclusion you do from the single rule that you have cited. But simply disagree with your sides interpretation on the basis of the rules for making Saving Throws.

Which ever interpretation you use, have a great tourney.

Again: it says +2 to your cover save. Please find, written in that sentence, where you get "from area terrain" from. Page and graph. Explicit, written words to support what you are saying.

You havent given relevant rules, as has been pointed out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You havent given relevant rules, as has been pointed out.

If you really want me to list them all one more time....

Page 18-19, Types of Saving Throws - Cover Saves, Here are the rules for one type of Saving Throw, referred to numerous times as "a" as in singular, specifically in context of a Model's Save.

Page 19, Types of Saving Throws - Models with more than one Save, Paragraph one (bold print) and three. Here we are told that a Model may only make one Saving Throw regardless of how many Saves the model has available, but it must be the best Save of those available Saves. In paragraph three it further elaborates that multiple Cover Saves are also subject to this rule.

Page 91, Types of Terrain - Area Terrain, paragraph two & three, bold print; These are the Rules for using the Area Terrain Cover Save.


As we are only permitted to use one Save we would only be concerned with its rules. There is no reason to leap to the conclusion that we are also permitted to use rules from any other Save. As the rules to not specifically allow us to or tell us not to, we have to use the basis that this is a Permissive Rule Set. And on that basis we find that we have no permission to use a different Saves rules with the Save we are taking. Therefore we are not allowed to do so.

Yes, and I was never debating you only get to *use* one Cover Save, however you do get to *have* more than one coversave.

Thus, those rules arent actuallly relevant. You can reprint them as much as you like, it does not alter facts.

You have permission to, when GtG, add +2 to your cover save. Is this specifically stated to be your Area Terrain cover save? No? Then you still cannot claim your inferrence as rules, it remains just that - inferred.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, and I was never debating you only get to *use* one Cover Save, however you do get to *have* more than one coversave.

Thus, those rules arent actuallly relevant. You can reprint them as much as you like, it does not alter facts.

You have permission to, when GtG, add +2 to your cover save. Is this specifically stated to be your Area Terrain cover save? No? Then you still cannot claim your inferrence as rules, it remains just that - inferred.

Where are you specifically permitted to use one Saves rules with another? This is what you are claiming based on one Saves rules while trying to ignore the rules that you only have permission to use one Save, not cherry pick the rules from all available Saves. It doesn't, it only gives permission to use the best from those available. Anything beyond using the rules for the best Save available is an inference drawn from the wording in two different Cover Saves rules, therefore are not the rules for making a Saving Throw as written.

Lets say:

-You have five cards numbered one to five with a word written on them available to you.
-You are asked to take only the highest numbered card.
-You are now holding the number five card.
-You read the word on the number five card.

You are stating instead that; You are able to look at all five cards words, hold more than one card and make a new word out of all the cards words in combination. Furthermore you are insisting that you can do this even though you are not given permission to do so.

Because I am IN Area Terrain, and am told that when I GtG I get +2 to my cover save

It does not specify which cover save, so I have no permission to only apply +1, because that would be breaking a rule

Stop breaking the tenets of this forum. Try again, find an actual, written rule stating that the +2 to cover save is ONLY to the cover save provided by Area Terrain

Further refusal to do so will be considered concession that you cannot do so.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'm with you on this, Loopy.

Ruins are not a subcategory of area terrain in 6th ed, unlike 5th. Ruins are solid terrain offering 4+ cover. And IF they have a base, that base is also area terrain. Area terrain, in 6th, is a defined flat area of terrain (with raised elements) which grants non-vehicle models in the area a 5+ save. This 5+ save can be improved by 2 pips by Going to Ground in it, reaching a 3+ cover save. If a model is instead physically obscured by the raised elements of a Ruin, they can claim a 4+ cover save; but this is not coming from Area Terrain, and thus if you GtG with it, you still only get a 3+ cover save (all examples assuming no other stacking special rules like Stealth).

Arguments that the +2 can be applied to other cover saves than the 5+ from area ignore the context of that provision.

I agree with Loopy and you as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because I am IN Area Terrain, and am told that when I GtG I get +2 to my cover save

It does not specify which cover save, so I have no permission to only apply +1, because that would be breaking a rule

Stop breaking the tenets of this forum. Try again, find an actual, written rule stating that the +2 to cover save is ONLY to the cover save provided by Area Terrain

Further refusal to do so will be considered concession that you cannot do so.

I am abiding by the tenets of this forum, just because you disagree with me does not mean that I am breaking the tenets. Furthermore I have no requirement to find a written rule stating specifically that the +2 is only applied to the Area Terrain Cover Save because the rule is listed under the rules for taking Area Terrain as your Save for your Saving Throw. Which I will state one more time for you, you may only take one of.

Because the +2 is granted under the Area Terrain Cover Saves rules you are required, as per the rules for Saving Throws, to be making your Saving Throw on that Save for them to take effect. If you are Taking your Saving Throw on a different Save you must use its rules. As you are not given permission to use another Save in addition to the Save you are taking, you are not given permission to use another Saves rules.

As stated numerous times this is a Permissive rule Set. While we are not expressly disallowed from using one Saves rules with another Save, we are not specifically granted permission to do so either. Which would lead us to the simplest literal interpretation of the rules for Saving Throws; We only use the rules for the Save we have taken as our Saving Throw, not the others that were available.

You tried a real world example. Exactly in breach of the tenets.

You can keep on stating things I agree with, as if you are making a point, that will not alter that you are not

You have permission when you GtG in area terrain to +2 to your cover save. Whcih cover save? Written rule stating this is the Area Terrain cover save.

Your continued refusal is treated as concession. Time for a lock.

tgf wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'm with you on this, Loopy.

Ruins are not a subcategory of area terrain in 6th ed, unlike 5th. Ruins are solid terrain offering 4+ cover. And IF they have a base, that base is also area terrain. Area terrain, in 6th, is a defined flat area of terrain (with raised elements) which grants non-vehicle models in the area a 5+ save. This 5+ save can be improved by 2 pips by Going to Ground in it, reaching a 3+ cover save. If a model is instead physically obscured by the raised elements of a Ruin, they can claim a 4+ cover save; but this is not coming from Area Terrain, and thus if you GtG with it, you still only get a 3+ cover save (all examples assuming no other stacking special rules like Stealth).

Arguments that the +2 can be applied to other cover saves than the 5+ from area ignore the context of that provision.

I agree with Loopy and you as well.

As do I. The context of the rule with regards to the 2+ bonus provided Area Terrain seems pretty plain to me that it applies to the save granted by the Area Terrain itself.

-Yad

Since when is a +2 to cover saves a coversave itself. It is not. You can't argue that. You choose the best of the +4 and +5 cover saves, then you apply appropriate modifiers. The +2 is not a part of the area terrain coversave. It is not the same at all. If you gtg in area terrain, you apply it to your best cover save.

It is not a cover save itself, and it is not a part of area terrain's cover save, so the rules you keep quoting are not even relevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You tried a real world example. Exactly in breach of the tenets.

You can keep on stating things I agree with, as if you are making a point, that will not alter that you are not

You have permission when you GtG in area terrain to +2 to your cover save. Whcih cover save? Written rule stating this is the Area Terrain cover save.

Your continued refusal is treated as concession. Time for a lock.

If you mean the cards, then no that wasn't a real world example. A real wold example would be trying to argue a projectiles trajectory or something like that. I state things you agree on as they go to my point and are relevant to the discussion. You disagree that they are relevant and disagree with my interpretation. And that is what I agree with you on, the rule is written in the Area Terrain Cover Save. I disagree that it applies to all Cover Saves for the reasons I have stated. My refusal is not, nor will it ever be, a concession. I have made my point clear on why I don't need to find a specific rules stating that it only applies to the Area Terrain Cover Save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:
Since when is a +2 to cover saves a coversave itself. It is not. You can't argue that. You choose the best of the +4 and +5 cover saves, then you apply appropriate modifiers. The +2 is not a part of the area terrain coversave. It is not the same at all. If you gtg in area terrain, you apply it to your best cover save.

It is not a cover save itself, and it is not a part of area terrain's cover save, so the rules you keep quoting are not even relevant.

If I asked you to use only the best Save from a Carapace 4+ Armour Save, a Combat Shield 6+ invulnerable Save and a 5+ Cover Save from an Intervening Unit which rules would you use to take your Saving Throw?

I think that the poll pretty clearly shows that this is something that A) needs a FAQ and B) should be discussed at the start of the game with a new opponent (along with such things as the long range weapon extending range of wound allocation mess).

It's off-topic, but I'm still stunned by how many people are confused by and uncomfortable with how range and wound allocation work. It's exactly the same thing as how Line of Sight and wound allocation work.

 Mannahnin wrote:
It's off-topic, but I'm still stunned by how many people are confused by and uncomfortable with how range and wound allocation work. It's exactly the same thing as how Line of Sight and wound allocation work.

It is kind of silly that 1 weapon can extend an entire units kill radius.

Yeah. It's really stupid. Looking at the game from a stark, numbers-based viewpoint, I guess I can see where someone could be unfazed by it, but I think it's the wrong way to adjudicate it. It just makes no real sense. Like, I can see the logic of it in RAW, but it still doesn't make sense.

It's like a puzzle that, for the jigsaw to fit, your picture is messed up, but if you force a piece of the puzzle into the wrong spot ever so slightly, the picture is clear.

I don't care a whit about the jigsaws fitting. I want my picture to look good.

cryhavok wrote:
Since when is a +2 to cover saves a coversave itself. It is not. You can't argue that. You choose the best of the +4 and +5 cover saves, then you apply appropriate modifiers. The +2 is not a part of the area terrain coversave. It is not the same at all. If you gtg in area terrain, you apply it to your best cover save.

It is not a cover save itself, and it is not a part of area terrain's cover save, so the rules you keep quoting are not even relevant.

I would also like to disagree with this. You are allowed to take the best save available. Note, the best save, not the best base and then modify it. IMO you take each save and work out its' final value.

Ruins 4+ if you GTG behind ruins +1 for a final total of 3+
Area terrain 5+ if you GTG +2 for a total of 3+

So the final result is 3+

Cheers

Andrew

 Tomb King wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
It's off-topic, but I'm still stunned by how many people are confused by and uncomfortable with how range and wound allocation work. It's exactly the same thing as how Line of Sight and wound allocation work.

It is kind of silly that 1 weapon can extend an entire units kill radius.

No more silly that it is that 1 guy who can see around the corner of a LOS-blocking wall can allow a whole unit's firing to potentially apply to a model hiding back there, as long as the rest of them can see at least one model in front of the wall.

And no more silly that it was before, when a unit with all 24" range guns could kill a whole bunch of models outside 24", as long as at least one model in the targeted unit was in range.

These situations are all equally abstract, and equally "silly" or not.

The thread that would never die.
Voted for the 2+, makes sense and could not refute it according to RAW. It does not give the either/or option with the GTG rule.

Any that disagree I will roll off with you...