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.

 AndrewC wrote:

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+

Right there with you, Andrew.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This is one of the things I really hate about sixth edition. A 2+ cover save is just stupid in my opinion. I have seen some armies that are simply designed to GTG and snap fire. Like I said really stupid. Fortunately the new Tau have made these kinds of tactics completely redundant.

Did you play 5th edition?
Because it was almost worst back then. You pretty much got a cover save for being on the board.

 AndrewC wrote:

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

I agree with this, Nice and clear, best save is taken and no mix'n'mach mods

Bausk - yet you havent provided a rule that actually states what you have asserted. You have inferred a lot, but presented no RAW.

That is what you have effectively conceded; the rule for GtG in area terrain DOES give permission to modify any cover save, and you are claiming it does not. Absent any rules support for your assertion, there is no argument any longer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - yet you havent provided a rule that actually states what you have asserted. You have inferred a lot, but presented no RAW.

That is what you have effectively conceded; the rule for GtG in area terrain DOES give permission to modify any cover save, and you are claiming it does not. Absent any rules support for your assertion, there is no argument any longer.

What specifically have I asserted and inferred? Nothing to my recollection, but I'm happy to hear what you think I have asserted and inferred.

In the mean time lets bring this back around to the start just for kicks seeing as we're throwing around accusations of assertion and inference. It was stated that you, and others, are making a leap of logic to draw the conclusion that "to their Cover Save" mean the Cover Save the model is using as its Saving Throw and not just within the context of the rules of Area Terrain. This is an inference in the same way as being able to infer that "regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured." is to mean that the model gets a 5+ Cover Save even if they are obscured by other terrain or not. Its taken out of context and asserted as the rule as written, without any supporting evidence other than the statement of the rule and saying any other interpretation is wrong.

I'll also be glad to tell you something else you no doubt already know; The rules for Going to Ground are a not found in the rules for Area Terrain but it is mentioned in them. The "blanket", as coined by another poster, rule is Go to Ground. Which we all know offers a+1 to Cover Saves (plural), amongst other rules. However the specific alteration of that rule is found under Area Terrain, which we should all know by now because its been posted about 40,000 times, states; "Models that Go to Ground (read as; use the fore mentioned rule) in Area Terrain receive +2 to their Cover Save, rather than +1".

In context we have a model that is making its Saving Throw (first rule) using the best available. which is a Cover Save (second rule), the model has Gone to Ground (third rule) using Area Terrain (forth rule) so the model receives a bonus of +2 to their Cover Save. Note how there were only four rule references in that statement, not five as you would have us believe by making Area Terrain wrap, like a blanket, around GTG rather than the other way around.

As said, "their cover save" is a singular term used in Area Terrain. The rule books black and white context establishes you are only using one Cover Save well before you get to the terrain section. It's, as in the rule books, assumption is you are reading the rules for Area Terrain if that is the Save you are using for your Saving Throw. Meaning, while you and I are capable of taking every factor into account when we play. The rule book steps though its process with blinders and only uses the factors it needs at the time.

This is why I keep referencing Saving Throws, you are jumping back to this step to look at a second Cover Saves rules while the book is sitting on the Cover Save the model is using as its Saving Throw.

The rule book
1) Available Saves - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

2) Select the best Save

3) Best Save - 5

4) Use the rules for that Save to make your Saving Throw

What you are asserting

1) Available Saves - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

2) Select the best Save

3) Best Save - 5

4) Go back to step 1) and get a sentence from Save 3's rules to apply to Save 5's rules

5) Use the rules for Save 5 with part of the rules from Save 3 to make your Saving Throw

 Mannahnin wrote:
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.

Are you talking about the blast weapons thing? That's stupid, too. I don't think that's the intent of that FAQ at all. At ALL. But you've seen my arguments in that thread as well.

 Mannahnin wrote:
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.

I think the degree of silliness is far greater for the way it is now. At least you could blame it on stray bullets before. Now the bullets only stray when there's a missile to lead them to the promised land of your enemies' brain-pans.

 Loopy wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
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.

Are you talking about the blast weapons thing? That's stupid, too. I don't think that's the intent of that FAQ at all. At ALL. But you've seen my arguments in that thread as well.

No. He's saying that if 9 guys in a unit can see 1 guy from the target unit, and 1 guy can see 9 other guys in the target unit, all 10 can be removed from a shooting attack.

GtG is simply a yes/no on/off ability. If you go to ground it is -1 to your cover save. if you go to ground and you happen to be in area terrain it is -2.

can we all agree to that?

no where does it state which cover save it applies to, simply that it modifies your current cover save by -1 or -2

that being said, if i am behind a ruin, i have a 4+ save. if i go to ground behind that ruin, i get -1 to my cover save for 3+ because GtG modifies my cover save.
This makes sense correct? Because GtG can apply to a ruin save because it applies to your cover save? right? right.

But wait! The ruin i'm standing behind is also in an area terrain. So i still have my best save of 4+, but GtG is now -2 because i am in area terrain.
Same exact scenario as 3 lines up, except GtG receives a bonus because i'm in area terrain.

bausk keeps imagining some unwritten link between the -2 and the area terrain 5+ like you can only apply it to your area save. GtG doesn't care what your save is. it only cares where you use it. out in the open = -1 and inside area terrain = -2

rigeld2 wrote:

 Loopy wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
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.

Are you talking about the blast weapons thing? That's stupid, too. I don't think that's the intent of that FAQ at all. At ALL. But you've seen my arguments in that thread as well.

No. He's saying that if 9 guys in a unit can see 1 guy from the target unit, and 1 guy can see 9 other guys in the target unit, all 10 can be removed from a shooting attack.

Silly, but still nowhere near AS silly. This is an extreme example of an abstraction in the game. It's more likely to have multiple models able to see a handful of models the rest of the squad cannot. Silly things that are abstractions to make the game faster are understandable.

Silly things that you need to do magical loop de loops of the rules to create are not good for the game. I assert that the argument about blast weapons not able to allocate wounds to entire units out of LOS and the argument about long-range weapons leading bolter rounds to the promised land are broken rules that need fixing. There are certainly people who disagree with me, but I really feel that these two community rulings can't possibly be the intent of the writers. I can't see any way it could be simply due to the silliness of it.

 deviantduck wrote:
bausk keeps imagining some unwritten link between the -2 and the area terrain 5+ like you can only apply it to your area save. GtG doesn't care what your save is. it only cares where you use it. out in the open = -1 and inside area terrain = -2

GtG only provides a -1. The area terrain section has a provision that gives you a -2. The argument is whether the context is relevant or not and it's a good argument.

 deviantduck wrote:
GtG is simply a yes/no on/off ability. If you go to ground it is -1 to your cover save. if you go to ground and you happen to be in area terrain it is -2.

can we all agree to that?

no where does it state which cover save it applies to, simply that it modifies your current cover save by -1 or -2

that being said, if i am behind a ruin, i have a 4+ save. if i go to ground behind that ruin, i get -1 to my cover save for 3+ because GtG modifies my cover save.
This makes sense correct? Because GtG can apply to a ruin save because it applies to your cover save? right? right.

But wait! The ruin i'm standing behind is also in an area terrain. So i still have my best save of 4+, but GtG is now -2 because i am in area terrain.
Same exact scenario as 3 lines up, except GtG receives a bonus because i'm in area terrain.

bausk keeps imagining some unwritten link between the -2 and the area terrain 5+ like you can only apply it to your area save. GtG doesn't care what your save is. it only cares where you use it. out in the open = -1 and inside area terrain = -2

Judging from the last six pages, no we can't agree

Unfortunately while your argument is worthy of merit, the OP scenario was area terrain, behind a ruin. Not that the ruin was the area terrain. There was/is two seperate pieces of terrain, so your hypothesis, again while worthy of merit, isn't really applicable.

Cheers

Andrew

 deviantduck wrote:


bausk keeps imagining some unwritten link between the -2 and the area terrain 5+ like you can only apply it to your area save. GtG doesn't care what your save is. it only cares where you use it. out in the open = -1 and inside area terrain = -2

You're right! I must be imagining that I read it in the Area Terrain rules.

I would agree with you if it was listed under the GTG rules, because then it would be apart of that 'on/off' rule that actually specifically states that it applies to all Cover Saves.

 AndrewC wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
GtG is simply a yes/no on/off ability. If you go to ground it is -1 to your cover save. if you go to ground and you happen to be in area terrain it is -2.

can we all agree to that?

no where does it state which cover save it applies to, simply that it modifies your current cover save by -1 or -2

that being said, if i am behind a ruin, i have a 4+ save. if i go to ground behind that ruin, i get -1 to my cover save for 3+ because GtG modifies my cover save.
This makes sense correct? Because GtG can apply to a ruin save because it applies to your cover save? right? right.

But wait! The ruin i'm standing behind is also in an area terrain. So i still have my best save of 4+, but GtG is now -2 because i am in area terrain.
Same exact scenario as 3 lines up, except GtG receives a bonus because i'm in area terrain.

bausk keeps imagining some unwritten link between the -2 and the area terrain 5+ like you can only apply it to your area save. GtG doesn't care what your save is. it only cares where you use it. out in the open = -1 and inside area terrain = -2

Judging from the last six pages, no we can't agree

Unfortunately while your argument is worthy of merit, the OP scenario was area terrain, behind a ruin. Not that the ruin was the area terrain. There was/is two seperate pieces of terrain, so your hypothesis, again while worthy of merit, isn't really applicable.

Cheers

Andrew

Nothing in the text makes this matter? They are treated the same regardless of the situation. Whether the area terrain be the base of the ruins or area terrain obscured by ruins. They are one in the same.

Neronoxx wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This is one of the things I really hate about sixth edition. A 2+ cover save is just stupid in my opinion. I have seen some armies that are simply designed to GTG and snap fire. Like I said really stupid. Fortunately the new Tau have made these kinds of tactics completely redundant.

Did you play 5th edition?
Because it was almost worst back then. You pretty much got a cover save for being on the board.

As for as I remember you never got a 2+ cover save in fifth edition.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This is one of the things I really hate about sixth edition. A 2+ cover save is just stupid in my opinion. I have seen some armies that are simply designed to GTG and snap fire. Like I said really stupid. Fortunately the new Tau have made these kinds of tactics completely redundant.

Did you play 5th edition?
Because it was almost worst back then. You pretty much got a cover save for being on the board.

As for as I remember you never got a 2+ cover save in fifth edition.

You remember incorrectly, there were situations where you could get a 2+ cover save in 5th ed.

ok bausk, answer this:

p98 Ruins: The Basics
All ruins are difficult terrain and provide a 4+ cover save.
(next paragraph)
A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain.

So... We now have area terrain that is 4+ cover if we are obscured 25%

p91 first column, last paragraph
Modesl that GtG in area terrain receive a +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

do you dispute that this is a 2+?

Why is it so hard to understand that the 4+ cover save is obtained by being obscured by the ruin.

A 5+ Cover save is obtained by being in Area Terrain.

These are 2 different saves, provided by 2 different types of cover. I Think we are all in agreement of that, now the question is: Can you apply the GTG special rule that you have when doing it in Area Terrain, to a cover save you get from a Ruin/Wall ?

If you could, dont you think they would have written it under ruins mayhaps, like they for example did with Defense lines, it doesnt say there that: if you are going to ground behind a defense line, treat the defense line as being area terrain.

Im pretty sure that most of the guys that are cheering for a 2+ GTG cover save thinks that its imba, and usefull, but also full well aware, that its not intended that way. Yes you can draw an invisible line between ruins with an area base, and the cover save from ruins. But that pretty much require that you throw away any knowledge of where you get your cover save from. First of all before making a decision whether or not you want to go to ground, you have to know where your cover save arrives from. What some of you are saying is that: Hey my cover save comes from The Ruined wall AND Area Terrain..

I think the reason why GW makes the reference to area terrain under the "Ruins with a base" is well, what else should they have written ? thought up a new kind of terrain, made it all to be ruins, that wouldnt make sense cause then all the would not provide much cover save, to the nature of them being a ruin. And therefore pretty much made the making of a base for a ruin, redundant.
What they probably havent thought of was that this could lead to a misunderstanding then, and its not that rare that something like this happens, comeon its not like this a small detail, like, move an inch longer while in this terrain or something or shorter, we are talking about a save that pretty much says: Well im sorry mate but my guardsmen comes equipped with a shovel and now they are terminators! :-)

Seriously... whenever GW gets themselves together and FAQ this it can be put to the dirt, pun intended. If they even bother, cause they will probably go like: Really guys ???)

Well and if you are headed to tournaments dont expect this to fly, unless your opponent is new or something heh, fell free to use it in friendly games or something, not many situations where it arrives, a 4+ cover save without going to ground is pretty good, so i would take that and then be able to do stuff next round.

Scenario: 2 squads guardsmen in ruins with area terrain and creed/kell behind spamming: Get back into the fight: TERMINATORS ! If i played it like that i would feel like a 14 year old kid cheating :-)

Well, that was a bit inflamitory. I can understand the viewpoint on the 2+ and the logic behind it. Unlike the extra range allocation from a long range weapon thing, this one actually makes some kind of reasonable sense by the rules and by common sense. I just think the 3+ makes MORE reasonable sense by the rules and common sense.

 deviantduck wrote:
ok bausk, answer this:

p98 Ruins: The Basics
All ruins are difficult terrain and provide a 4+ cover save.
(next paragraph)
A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain.

So... We now have area terrain that is 4+ cover if we are obscured 25%

p91 first column, last paragraph
Modesl that GtG in area terrain receive a +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

do you dispute that this is a 2+?

Yes I do. Here's why;

Page 98 Ruins: Defines Ruins as Difficult Terrain with a 4+ cover save. Yes. The next paragraph defines a Ruins Base as Area Terrain. These are separately defined parts with separately defined rules to a single terrain piece. In much the same was as a multi-part building or a Bastion with a Battlement. The two are on the same terrain piece but have separate rules. The boon for a based ruin is if your on the ground level and not obscured you can still get a Cover Save, where if the ruin did not have a base you would not.

That's Page 91 Area Terrain. You seem to have skipped over that part that defines it as a type of terrain with rules rather than a rule like GTG is.

Bausk - you have inferred "to the save provided by Area terrain" in the rules for GtG in Area Terrain. That is not present. Instead you are told to add 2 to your Cover Save
The Cover Save I take when GtG behind a ruin is 4+ for the ruin> I then add 2.

I have followed all the applicable rules, while inferring none. I have also pointed this out about 10 times now, yet you apparently keep missing it. Impressive

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - you have inferred "to the save provided by Area terrain" in the rules for GtG in Area Terrain. That is not present. Instead you are told to add 2 to your Cover Save
The Cover Save I take when GtG behind a ruin is 4+ for the ruin> I then add 2.

I have followed all the applicable rules, while inferring none. I have also pointed this out about 10 times now, yet you apparently keep missing it. Impressive

I hear what your saying man, I even understand it. I Just don't agree with it, I've said my interpretation and explained this to you in response to your argument. I feel there nothing more to be said between us so how about we let others weigh in their opinions to see if we can both get a different perspective on this?

Others have weighed in, with generally the same opinion - that when you are told "+2 to your cover save", it means precisely that.

You also didnt appear to understand it, as you asked what you had inferred, despite this being pointed out a number of times.

Your claim is that the rule does not need to state "to your Area terrain cover save", our claim is that "+2 to your cover save", as a directive, is clear. Disobeying it by only adding +1 is breaking a rule

 Loopy wrote:
No. This has been discussed before.

3+

You either get 3+ from the area terrain or 3+ from the intervening ruins blocking.

The +2 is applied to the bonus from area terrain. 5+ goes to 3+.

The +1 is applied to the bonus from the ruin. 4+ goes to 3+.

The two cover saves are the same.

What rulebook are you playing from? It certainly isn't warhammer 40k 6th edition.

The rules are clearly written. It would be a 2+ cover save. If you don't like it or agree with it, too bad. Deal with it and move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Loopy wrote:
Well, that was a bit inflamitory. I can understand the viewpoint on the 2+ and the logic behind it. Unlike the extra range allocation from a long range weapon thing, this one actually makes some kind of reasonable sense by the rules and by common sense. I just think the 3+ makes MORE reasonable sense by the rules and common sense.

The rulebook isn't based on common sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bausk - you have inferred "to the save provided by Area terrain" in the rules for GtG in Area Terrain. That is not present. Instead you are told to add 2 to your Cover Save
The Cover Save I take when GtG behind a ruin is 4+ for the ruin> I then add 2.

I have followed all the applicable rules, while inferring none. I have also pointed this out about 10 times now, yet you apparently keep missing it. Impressive

Agree 100%


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fossing wrote:
Why is it so hard to understand that the 4+ cover save is obtained by being obscured by the ruin.

A 5+ Cover save is obtained by being in Area Terrain.

These are 2 different saves, provided by 2 different types of cover. I Think we are all in agreement of that, now the question is: Can you apply the GTG special rule that you have when doing it in Area Terrain, to a cover save you get from a Ruin/Wall ?

If you could, dont you think they would have written it under ruins mayhaps, like they for example did with Defense lines, it doesnt say there that: if you are going to ground behind a defense line, treat the defense line as being area terrain.

Im pretty sure that most of the guys that are cheering for a 2+ GTG cover save thinks that its imba, and usefull, but also full well aware, that its not intended that way. Yes you can draw an invisible line between ruins with an area base, and the cover save from ruins. But that pretty much require that you throw away any knowledge of where you get your cover save from. First of all before making a decision whether or not you want to go to ground, you have to know where your cover save arrives from. What some of you are saying is that: Hey my cover save comes from The Ruined wall AND Area Terrain..

I think the reason why GW makes the reference to area terrain under the "Ruins with a base" is well, what else should they have written ? thought up a new kind of terrain, made it all to be ruins, that wouldnt make sense cause then all the would not provide much cover save, to the nature of them being a ruin. And therefore pretty much made the making of a base for a ruin, redundant.
What they probably havent thought of was that this could lead to a misunderstanding then, and its not that rare that something like this happens, comeon its not like this a small detail, like, move an inch longer while in this terrain or something or shorter, we are talking about a save that pretty much says: Well im sorry mate but my guardsmen comes equipped with a shovel and now they are terminators! :-)

Seriously... whenever GW gets themselves together and FAQ this it can be put to the dirt, pun intended. If they even bother, cause they will probably go like: Really guys ???)

Well and if you are headed to tournaments dont expect this to fly, unless your opponent is new or something heh, fell free to use it in friendly games or something, not many situations where it arrives, a 4+ cover save without going to ground is pretty good, so i would take that and then be able to do stuff next round.

Scenario: 2 squads guardsmen in ruins with area terrain and creed/kell behind spamming: Get back into the fight: TERMINATORS ! If i played it like that i would feel like a 14 year old kid cheating :-)

RAI is not the same as RAW. 2+ Cover save all day.

I choose RAW as 2+.

Mostly from a fluff standpoint I feel that:
Dropping to the ground in a set of trees with a building between you would grant just as much of a benefit as doing the same action without the building between you...if not more so.


I think HYWPI would be 3+ for me if somebody was shooting at me and after explaining the situation to somebody...I got a funny look. I cave easier than some of the super lawyers on here...

SHENANIGANS!!!

 deviantduck wrote:
ok bausk, answer this:

p98 Ruins: The Basics
All ruins are difficult terrain and provide a 4+ cover save.
(next paragraph)
A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain.

So... We now have area terrain that is 4+ cover if we are obscured 25%

p91 first column, last paragraph
Modesl that GtG in area terrain receive a +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

do you dispute that this is a 2+?

Yes, firstly your assertion that the area terrain is a 4+ cover save. The rules are quite clear, Ruins 4+, Area Terrain 5+. Nowhere in the section you are quoting states that it is an area terrain with a 4+ cover save.

Secondly, there has to be some inference to the location of the two rules, GtG is a generic rule under cover saves. Area terrain (GtG) is a specific rule elsewhere. Each piece of cover has to/should be considered seperately for the purposes of determining the final cover save. What we are trying to say is, for example, you can't fire a plasma pistol, but use the range of a bolter because you have both. Each 'thing' has seperate rules that apply only to that 'thing'. I know that Nos will say that the rules don't explicitly say that, and I can respect that position, however inference of the rules must be taken into account or you get some really stupid situations. Take defence lines, I can have a unit of 10 men, 5 infront of the line, 5 behind. If I GtG, the 5 guys infront of the line gets a 5+ cover save, because the way the (exception GtG) rule is written it applys to units, not models. Also please define 'behind'? Is that 1", 10" or 100"?*

We have to infer a lot of rules within the context of how and where they are written. I believe that the +2 cover save, because it is written in the area terrain section, only applies to the save gained from the area terrain and is not a generic bonus, which normally states 'any' cover saves as opposed to 'the' cover save.

RAW and RAI can be interpreted both ways

Cheers

Andrew

* Infact the rule doesn't even say directly behind, so if the line is closer to you than the target then the target is behind the defence line.

Is it possible that the the characteristics of area terrain are completely independent of each other? I mean, they have to be since being difficult ground is one of those characteristics.

So let's look at this one phrase at a time.

What differentiates area terrain from open ground?

1) It's always difficult ground. This has nothing to do with either of the sentences that follow.

2) You receive a 5+ cover save for being in it, without regard to % obscuration. Open ground provides no save on its own.

3) If you GTG, you improve your save by +2. For open ground that is only +1. This is not a dependent clause, just like the first two are not dependent on each other.

The first characteristic defines movement within area terrain. The second defines the cover save provided by area terrain. The third simply modifies the GTG rules while a model is in area terrain and is completely independent of the defined cover save.

For consistency of argument, if you contend that being shot at through ruins while having gone to ground in area terrain does not confer a 2+ save, then you also have to argue that if a model in open ground has gone to ground and is subsequently shot at through ruins, the fact that he has gone to ground is irrelevant and he only can use the 4+ of the ruins.

Not at all. When you go to ground you get +1 to any cover save. When you go to ground in area you get +2 to your cover save.

Area Terrain has a defined set of rules. The three most essential ones are bolded and presented together. The +2 to the cover save is part and parcel of them.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Not at all. When you go to ground you get +1 to any cover save. When you go to ground in area you get +2 to your cover save.

Area Terrain has a defined set of rules. The three most essential ones are bolded and presented together. The +2 to the cover save is part and parcel of them.

And that's all there is to it and much is being read into that. Area terrain provides modifications to three rules: movement, cover saves and GTG. You move as if in difficult ground, you get a cover save of 5+ whether obscured or not and the GTG bonus is +2 instead of +1. None of them modify or depend on the other two. All provide modification for other basic rules. That is RAW.

Nope.

You're making an inference that the GtG bonus applies to any cover save, or to whatever cover save the model chooses to utilize.

I'm making an inference that the GtG bonus only applies to the cover save from the area terrain.

The area terrain GtG rule uses the singular "save", rather than the plural "saves", and it doesn't say "any save" or similar. Compare to Stealth, on page 42, which states that the model gets +1 to its cover saves.

Both your position and mine are founded on inferences; interpreting a rule which doesn't explicitly support either. Mine has additional support from the context of the rule, and IMO seems more likely to be correct based on the consequences of the interpretation; that 2+ cover saves are not easily obtained unless you have a special rule/special terrain type in play.

Redacted by Mannahnin

ajsnips44 wrote:

The rules are clearly written. It would be a 2+ cover save. If you don't like it or agree with it, too bad. Deal with it and move on.

You added nothing to the argument. This is just contradiction.