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.

One last call from being TO that I had to make (against the same guy.... go figure) and want to push this one down the line.

The terrain in question was a ruin with a built base.
Something like this:


In contrast to ruin terrain without a base like such:


The ruling in question:

A non-vehicle model in the bottom rubble of this terrain - Does it get a 2+ save going to ground?

Idea behind this: Ruin area being shot through gives the model a 4+ cover save. BRB page 91 states: "Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1."

Line right before that though states: "Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save,..."

Would the Go to Ground bounce the 4+ ruin cover save to a 2+ save?
Or would the model get a 3+ due to both +1 to the 4+ ruin save and the +2 to a 5+ area terrain save?

Was ruled a 3+ due to the saying of getting a +2 Go to Ground in area terrain and area terrain is a 5+ cover save. (only exception being Iron Bark Forrest.)

It's kind of dumb, but there's nothing preventing you from using the area terrain G2G bonus while not using the area terrain's own cover save.

However, the rule is quite clear in this case. The ground floor of the ruins is treated as area terrain. Area terrain has a 5+ cover save.

So a 3+ cover save is correct.

Cheers

Andrew

Seconding the above. The +2 can only apply to the 5+ save not to the 4+ even if they're say, standing in area terrain while partially behind a ruined wall.

I disagree. The rule does not say the model going to ground receives +2 to the cover save granted by the Area Terrain. It simply says it receives +2 to its cover save. This is the same wording of Stealth and Shrouded.

 Dakkamite wrote:
The +2 can only apply to the 5+ save not to the 4+ even if they're say, standing in area terrain while partially behind a ruined wall.

A good rule which suffers from the inconvenience of not existing.

This pops up every so often. It seems that a majority of people see the allowance on all cover saves (so an Ork biker would get it with the Exhaust Cloud special rule), where as others see it as only applying to the cover save granted by the area terrain itself.

I think th ecorrect ruling is based upon what the area terrain is ruled as ...

Area Forest-- forest start at 5+ going to ground gives you a +2 bonus in area terrain. Hence a 3+ save

Area Ruins-- Ruis start at a 4+ going to ground gives you a +2 bonus in area terrain. Hence a 2+ save.

But in either case, the TO has the final call on that one.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. The rule does not say the model going to ground receives +2 to the cover save granted by the Area Terrain. It simply says it receives +2 to its cover save. This is the same wording of Stealth and Shrouded.

I am not trying to call you out, but you may want to look up Stealth and Shroud SR's.

Both Stealth and Shroud are written that they get 1 and 2 "better" (respectively) cover saves, even when no cover is present.

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?

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.

Pyrian wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
The +2 can only apply to the 5+ save not to the 4+ even if they're say, standing in area terrain while partially behind a ruined wall.

A good rule which suffers from the inconvenience of not existing.

Thats my interpretation of the rule, wasn't meaning to imply it was RAW

This one is one of those things that gets debated without getting a clear winner, whichever way the TO calls it is good. I'm on the +2 side though.

There are two seperate rule situations being argued here. Firstly the OP scenario is clearly a 3+ save. There is no 'ruin' giving a 4+ cover save. The rules are quite clear, the ground floor is treated as area terrain, so that means it has a 5+ cover save base, not a 4+ base.

The problems arise when you have two seperate pieces of terrain, one behind another, ie a ruin infront of ,eg, a crater. The situation really needs a FAQ.

Personally I don't feel that a 2+ cover save should be so easily come by. YMMV.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
There are two seperate rule situations being argued here. Firstly the OP scenario is clearly a 3+ save. There is no 'ruin' giving a 4+ cover save. The rules are quite clear, the ground floor is treated as area terrain, so that means it has a 5+ cover save base, not a 4+ base.

The problems arise when you have two seperate pieces of terrain, one behind another, ie a ruin infront of ,eg, a crater. The situation really needs a FAQ.

Personally I don't feel that a 2+ cover save should be so easily come by. YMMV.

Cheers

Andrew

The OP said in the situation that the model was in area terrain (5+ cover) and obscured by the ruin (4+).

No, he said it was in the area terrain at the bottom of the ruin, using the first picture as the example.

Cheers

Andrew

The piece of terrain in question:

Roughly 12 inches by 15 inches.

Essentially a torn down building

4 corners of a building physically there. Each side of the walls extending about 3-6 inches from the corner and about 6 inches in height at the peak of each corner.

The 'centers' of the walls were non-existant.

There was roughly a 1.5 inch 'skirting' of base from the supposed walls.

Firewarriors were entirely in the tile of the terrain. 1 or 2 models within the skirting of the terrain. The other 8 or 9 models were within the center of the destroyed 'building.'

Tau player fought for all fire warriors to have a 2+ save due to going to ground within ruin area terrain.

Would you give all a 2+ save?
Would you give all a 3+ save?
Or would you make each model do a different save based on whether or not a standing wall was 25% covering the model taking the save from the source of the shooting attack?

jazzpaintball wrote:
The piece of terrain in question:

Roughly 12 inches by 15 inches.

Essentially a torn down building

4 corners of a building physically there. Each side of the walls extending about 3-6 inches from the corner and about 6 inches in height at the peak of each corner.

The 'centers' of the walls were non-existant.

There was roughly a 1.5 inch 'skirting' of base from the supposed walls.

Firewarriors were entirely in the tile of the terrain. 1 or 2 models within the skirting of the terrain. The other 8 or 9 models were within the center of the destroyed 'building.'

Tau player fought for all fire warriors to have a 2+ save due to going to ground within ruin area terrain.

Would you give all a 2+ save?
Would you give all a 3+ save?
Or would you make each model do a different save based on whether or not a standing wall was 25% covering the model taking the save from the source of the shooting attack?

Each model's save would be based on how much the ruin obscures them. Any model that is 76+% visible to all firing models has a 5+ cover save. Each model that is at least 25% obscured to any firing model would have a 4+ cover save. If the unit goes to ground...then you have a debate. Those with just a 5+ will have a 3+ cover save. Those who have the 4+ will have either a 2+ or a 3+ depending on how your group (or TO) rules it.

Saves are by model

steinerp wrote:
Saves are by model

i understand that.

What I am still trying to figure out is when the models are 25% obsscurred by the wall, will the models get a 3+ from going to ground behind a ruin or going to ground in area terrain, or does the model get a 2+ save from going to ground in area terrain behind said ruin?

He has a 3+ save. The problem is that the rules for 'based' terrain, replaces that of the original terrain piece. As I have said before the rules specifically point out that the terrain is treated as area terrain. Area terrain has been clearly delineated as a flat 5+ save as per the BRB.

Cheers

Andrew

To begin with, let me state I have always hated area terrain. The fact that you have to simply be on one side of a line in the sand causes so many problems and can be exploited quite well. The above ruin is a prime example of this, just look at the size of those damn bases. I don't have anything for reference, but they must stick at least a few damn inches out of the ruins themselves! Given that it classifies as difficult terrain, having a large area base around a ruin makes it a lot harder to charge or otherwise get closer to the models within.

Sorry, mini rant out of the way.

This is now starting to become more gray for me then I first realized. I was going to poke the order of operations to get an answer but I was faulted by one simple question: If you take a cover save from the ruin rules, do you also get to evoke the area terrain rule?

Page 19, models with more then one save, simply states you use the best cover save. There is no defining what the best cover save is, or I should say how you come to conclude which is the best. Given that we can apply several different order of mathematics and logic to this question, it is very easy to get different answers as to what the 'best cover save' actually is. I can see, equally valid, at least three separate order of operations.

The first involves calculating the numbers based on keeping the 'cover types' separate. For this you start with the base number and then apply only the rules suitable to that type of cover. You continue through the rules till you have the end result each type of cover save and simply select whatever give you the best chance.

The second involves selecting the cover type giving you the best save before you look at any thing else. Only then do you apply any rules related to that cover type and only that cover type. This does take away the freedom of choice, it all can be calculated automatically, but it comes to the best answer still regardless. It would be very rare, I can't imagine it, for a serious of bonus on on open terrain to lower the number to a better result then any other terrain. The majority of bonuses that adjust cover saves are universal, applied to both possible options, with only a handful being precise to a certain type of terrain.

The third is simply the 'all in the pot' method. Throw all the numbers into a pot and then simply apply whichever of the rules you want to evoke to both starting numbers in any combination you wish. You simply start with the best cover save available and treat all rules that could modify it as valid regardless of where they are coming from. It reeks of manipulation in order to get the upper hand, but I can't discard the argument on that alone as many gray areas have been answered by 'whatever gets you the best result' when it came to FAQs.

I lean towards the first being correct, on the simple ground I have not seen anything giving permission to mix the rules for different cover types.

 AndrewC wrote:
He has a 3+ save. The problem is that the rules for 'based' terrain, replaces that of the original terrain piece. As I have said before the rules specifically point out that the terrain is treated as area terrain. Area terrain has been clearly delineated as a flat 5+ save as per the BRB.

The rules for based terrain in no way replace the cover granted by the ruin.

"A ruin might be mounted on a base, decorated with rubble, and other debris. In this case, treat the base as area terrain." (98)

The rules specifically point out that the base of a ruin is treated as area terrain, not the ruin itself. So the above section of your quote, that I underlined, is incorrect.

Therefore a model, that is in the area terrain of a ruins base, and 25% or more obscured by the walls, or other elements of, the Ruin has a 4+, and a 5+ cover save, though it needs to take the best save available to it. If said model goes to ground he adds +2 to his cover save, as he is going to ground in area terrain.

jazzpaintball wrote:
What I am still trying to figure out is when the models are 25% obsscurred by the wall, will the models get a 3+ from going to ground behind a ruin or going to ground in area terrain, or does the model get a 2+ save from going to ground in area terrain behind said ruin?

If a model is in area terrain it gets a +2 to its cover save for going to ground.

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

Basically you have to ask one question:

1) Has the model gone to ground in area terrain?

If the answer is yes the model receives +2 to its cover save. If the same model is 25% or more obscured by a fortification it will Technically have a 1+ cover save (Though 2+ is the lowest you can get so the model will get a 2+ cover save, but if something reduces the cover save by 1 then it will still have a 2+ cover save).

Deathreaper. No.

Had the terrain been two seperate pieces then the argument holds merit. However this is a single piece of terrain. Please show me where in the rules you can have area terrain with a 4+ cover save?

There isn't. Had there been a disclaimer that the cover save for area terrain may vary, then fine go with it, but there simply isn't.

The rules for area terrain is quite clear, the base is considered area terrain, it doesn't say 'area terrain with a 4+ save', it doesn't say 'this is ruins but is considered to also be area terrain.'

It says treat the base as area terrain. No exceptions, conditions or caveats. So the ruins become area terrain, and that means a 5+ save.

Cheers

Andrew

You are totally misunderstanding how Ruins with bases work.

The base is Area Terrain, however the vertical walls are still Ruins. So if the model is obscured by the walls it will have a 4+ cover save, and it will also have a 5+ save just for standing on the base regardless of being obscured or not.

Well to be purely RAW here going to ground in area terrain makes your cover save worse.

just going to ground adds 1 to your cover saving throw. so you add 1 to the roll of your dice.
stealth improves the save by 1
shroud improves the save by 2
G2G in area terrain gets +2 to the cover save.

so just remind the guy pulling this that 5+2=7, or 4+2 equals 6 (pg 2) and offer your calculator if he wants to check your math.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Well to be purely RAW here going to ground in area terrain makes your cover save worse.

just going to ground adds 1 to your cover saving throw. so you add 1 to the roll of your dice.
stealth improves the save by 1
shroud improves the save by 2
G2G in area terrain gets +2 to the cover save.

so just remind the guy pulling this that 5+2=7, or 4+2 equals 6 (pg 2) and offer your calculator if he wants to check your math.

This is not true at all, a 4+ cover save -2 to the cover save, is a 6+ cover save. With a 4+ cover save, +2 results in a 2+ cover save. Cover saves work in reverse math as per page 18

"Models in a unit that has gone to ground lmmediately receive +1 to their cover saving throws."
and
"Models that are not currently in a position that would give them a cover save can still Go to Ground by diving to the floor (or some other evasion technique) and receive a 6+ cover save."

establish that if you have a cover save of - (The worst possible value) and you add one to that it becomes a 6 working in the opposite direction of normal math.

 AndrewC wrote:
Deathreaper. No.

Had the terrain been two seperate pieces then the argument holds merit. However this is a single piece of terrain. Please show me where in the rules you can have area terrain with a 4+ cover save?

It does not exist, and you are misunderstanding the rules, or what I am saying, or both.

There isn't. Had there been a disclaimer that the cover save for area terrain may vary, then fine go with it, but there simply isn't.

Which, of course, does not matter at all.

The rules for area terrain is quite clear, the base is considered area terrain, it doesn't say 'area terrain with a 4+ save', it doesn't say 'this is ruins but is considered to also be area terrain.'

It says treat the base as area terrain. No exceptions, conditions or caveats. So the ruins become area terrain, and that means a 5+ save.

I never claimed the base gave anything but a 5+. You are right the BASE is area terrain, but the walls that are on the base are not the base, they are the ruin itself.

The ruin itself (The walls and elements of the actual ruin, not the base, give a 4+ as per the rules).

So if you are on the base you have a 5+, if you are sufficiently obscured by the walls and elements of the actual ruin you have a 4+ cover save as per the rules. If you are both on the base and sufficiently obscured by the walls and elements of the actual ruin you have a 5+ and a 4+ cover save as per the rules.

 AndrewC wrote:
Please show me where in the rules you can have area terrain with a 4+ cover save?

This rule does not exist. However, Death Reaper did not say that it did exist. You misunderstood what he said. Read it again.

the ruins become area terrain, and that means a 5+ save.

Show in the rules where it says "ruins become area terrain." It does not. It says something else.

I want to thank you for that, it opened a whole new possible solution to this problem. I was going to laugh at the technically of it all, and point out this is why systems should always be 'higher is better' or 'lower is better' and not a mix of the both. But then it got me to thinking...

What if the term saving throw is not talking about the target value, but the act of rolling the dice?

Till this point I have been treating it as a defining term. All the saves within this section of the books are 'saving throws' kind of thing. Nothing more then a good place to group similar rules in a way format that is easier to follow. This was compounded by the fact the book, and everyone else, drops the word 'throw' and shortens the word saving down to save. This made using the term "X saving throw" interchangeability with "X save" became common to me.

By making it so 'save characteristics' and 'saving throws' are two separate things a lot of the confusion goes away!

The act of making a saving throw involves rolling a D6 verse a predetermined value. Anything that modifies the 'saving throw' would not be modifying the determined value but the dice roll itself. We are no longer looking at something formatted like this: "1d6 Vs 4+2" but are now looking at something along the lines of "1d6+2 Vs 4."

That would make sense, consider how the going to ground section is actually worded, even though the target is 'lower the better.' It can't be talking about the save characteristic being modified, as that would make no sense, so it has to be the dice roll. Other sections are far better worded so they do not cause this problem, as they do not use +1 terminology but 'considered 1 better.' This means you could easily apply to the save characteristic and still come to the very same result if you applied it to the dice throw itself.

JinxDragon wrote:
To begin with, let me state I have always hated area terrain. The fact that you have to simply be on one side of a line in the sand causes so many problems and can be exploited quite well. The above ruin is a prime example of this, just look at the size of those damn bases. I don't have anything for reference, but they must stick at least a few damn inches out of the ruins themselves! Given that it classifies as difficult terrain, having a large area base around a ruin makes it a lot harder to charge or otherwise get closer to the models within.

Oh god, not more of this. I have to fight to get area terrain into my games these days. It's easy to say "feth area terrain" when your running an army with decent armour saves, but your also saying "feth Orks, Tyranids, and (to a lesser extent) Imperial Guard" when you do so. If my options are a) put the boys in the open with no save or b) have 10% of my squad able to see the enermy but get cover, I'm going to choose c) find another board to play on and if necessary, another player to play against!

JinxDragon wrote:
I want to thank you for that, it opened a whole new possible solution to this problem. I was going to laugh at the technically of it all, and point out this is why systems should always be 'higher is better' or 'lower is better' and not a mix of the both. But then it got me to thinking...

What if the term saving throw is not talking about the target value, but the act of rolling the dice?

Till this point I have been treating it as a defining term. All the saves within this section of the books are 'saving throws' kind of thing. Nothing more then a good place to group similar rules in a way format that is easier to follow. This was compounded by the fact the book, and everyone else, drops the word 'throw' and shortens the word saving down to save. This made using the term "X saving throw" interchangeability with "X save" became common to me.

By making it so 'save characteristics' and 'saving throws' are two separate things a lot of the confusion goes away!

The act of making a saving throw involves rolling a D6 verse a predetermined value. Anything that modifies the 'saving throw' would not be modifying the determined value but the dice roll itself. We are no longer looking at something formatted like this: "1d6 Vs 4-2" but are now looking at something along the lines of "1d6+2 Vs 4."

That would make sense, considering that everything which boosts a saving throw is always a positive, even though the target is 'lower the better.' Being the most commonly modified saving throw, it is the best example for finding what gives bonuses. It makes no sense to take equipment that makes your saves worse but everything there is +1 or +2. It can't be talking about the save characteristic being modified, as that would make no sense, so it has to be the dice roll.

I've always looked at it that way (1d6+2 vs 4) but convert it it my head when talking to others who don't grok it that way.