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.

Hi guys,

a discussion in the comments on BoLS made me think and i hope to find some people that could clarify.

A model is on the base of a based ruin and therefor in area terrain. It should get a 5+ cover save whether obscured or not as per the area terrain rules.
Now the model gets shot at and is 25% obscured by a part of the ruin which would give it a 4+ cover save.
The rules for area terrain tell you to get +2 on your cover saves if you are in area terrain and decide to gtg. You get +1 on cover saves if you are NOT in area terrain. Also you always have to use the best cover save available if there are different cover saves you are eligible to.

What cover save would i get if i gtg?
What cover save do i have to use if i dont gtg?


posted in the wrong forum. Waiting for a mod to move. Im sorry.

4+, 2+

There is a long discussion on this: one side states that you only apply the area terrain "+2" to the area terrain cover save of 5+, the other doesnt.

The rules say that you get a +2 to your cover save for going to ground in area terrain. It does not explicitly limit this to the save provided by the area terrain.

However, many people argue that it should only apply to the save provided by the area terrain. It's up to you what you make of it, best discuss it with your opponent before the game.

This is definitely an area not well covered by the rules. I see arguments going both ways. However in debates like this our group always plays the least powerful option as the one most likely to be true (Grotsnik's Razor), until an official ruling comes from on-high. So like other posters have said: discuss it beforehand.

Well the rule is pretty clear, it's just that it goes against what a lot of people expect to happen.

I also don't think that e.g. FMC going to ground in area terrain while being obscured by ruins given them a 2+ cover save is intended, but in absence of a clarification from GW...

4+, 3+

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is a long discussion on this: one side states that you only apply the area terrain "+2" to the area terrain cover save of 5+, the other doesnt.

Yup. I believe that if you read the rule (pag 91) in context, the +2 to the "cover save" (singular, as phrased in the rulebook) is a property of area terrain applying only to the 5+ cover save (that specific singular one) granted by the area terrain. Compare this to the wording for Stealth (page 42), a different cover-enhancing special rule, which states that it grants +1 to the models "cover saves" (plural), thus making clear it applies to whatever cove save the model is using.

To me it seems clear, but even if you find it ambiguous, in an ambiguous situation the less powerful interpretation should be used. That you can't easily access a 2+ cover save without using some special terrain (defensive lines) or special rule (like Stealth) seems like the most likely intent as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shandara wrote:
I also don't think that e.g. FMC going to ground in area terrain while being obscured by ruins given them a 2+ cover save is intended, but in absence of a clarification from GW...

Are there any FMCs which aren't Fearless, so are eligible to GtG?

 Mannahnin wrote:
Are there any FMCs which aren't Fearless, so are eligible to GtG?

Riptide is the first that springs to mind.
Edit: Sorry, didn't spot the Flying part of FMC.

From memory, again I can't check up, but would daemon prince with wings count?

JinxDragon wrote:
From memory, again I can't check up, but would daemon prince with wings count?

Cannot be pinned but can go to ground as are effectively fearless but arent, to be honest better for them to jink (3+ or within 8 inches 2+) if nurgled. Any other prince might as well take their armour or invul

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
I also don't think that e.g. FMC going to ground in area terrain while being obscured by ruins given them a 2+ cover save is intended, but in absence of a clarification from GW...

Are there any FMCs which aren't Fearless, so are eligible to GtG?

All Codex: Chaos Daemons FMC are eligible.

I've never really understood the confusion on this one. It seems pretty cut and dried that area terrain provides you a +2 to your cover save when going to ground, regardless of which cover save you're applying it to. That's just me, though.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I've never really understood the confusion on this one. It seems pretty cut and dried that area terrain provides you a +2 to your cover save when going to ground, regardless of which cover save you're applying it to. That's just me, though.

Its pretty damn powerful. I can live with both interpretations though. My problem is that its such a specific situation that its hard to talk to your opponent before game. And tbh there is so much stuff you would have to remember to talk about and im not going to start a list of this stuff ... it would take longer to discuss all the rules problems than play the game. So i hoped for a clear answer :(.

Nevertheless thanks for your answers.

 Mannahnin wrote:
4+, 3+

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is a long discussion on this: one side states that you only apply the area terrain "+2" to the area terrain cover save of 5+, the other doesnt.

Yup. I believe that if you read the rule (pag 91) in context, the +2 to the "cover save" (singular, as phrased in the rulebook) is a property of area terrain applying only to the 5+ cover save (that specific singular one) granted by the area terrain. Compare this to the wording for Stealth (page 42), a different cover-enhancing special rule, which states that it grants +1 to the models "cover saves" (plural), thus making clear it applies to whatever cove save the model is using.

To me it seems clear, but even if you find it ambiguous, in an ambiguous situation the less powerful interpretation should be used. That you can't easily access a 2+ cover save without using some special terrain (defensive lines) or special rule (like Stealth) seems like the most likely intent as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shandara wrote:
I also don't think that e.g. FMC going to ground in area terrain while being obscured by ruins given them a 2+ cover save is intended, but in absence of a clarification from GW...

Are there any FMCs which aren't Fearless, so are eligible to GtG?

I read it more like Mannahnin does. Your model is eligible for 2 different cover saves. A 4+ ruins, or a 5+ area. If you go to ground you are eligible for a 3+ gtg-ruins or a 3+ gtg area. As long as you know how its going to work before the game starts there should not be an issue, but it should be discussed with your opponent.

I'm still in the 4+/2+ camp on this one.

We've had long discussions on this before... GW should FAQ this one really.

Luckily at my FLGS all of the ruins are baseless ones so it's never come up..

The 3+/3+ crowd are only correct if you assume +2 gtg is directly connected to gaining the 5+ from area terrain. This doesn't seem to be the case simply because they are separated by being in separate sentences and the rule making no mention on needing to use area terrain to get the +2 gtg. Those two factors combined IMO makes it clear the two aspects of area terrain are not connected

It's pretty clear, from what I've read.

Models that gtg in area terrain receive a +2 to their cover save.

Ruins are not area terrain, they are ruins, thus you gain the normal +1 to your cover save for gtg in ruins.

Both are 3+ base cover saves.

robzidious wrote:
It's pretty clear, from what I've read.

Models that gtg in area terrain receive a +2 to their cover save.

Ruins are not area terrain, they are ruins, thus you gain the normal +1 to your cover save for gtg in ruins.

Both are 3+ base cover saves.

The base of a ruin is area terrain...

 DeathReaper wrote:

robzidious wrote:
It's pretty clear, from what I've read.

Models that gtg in area terrain receive a +2 to their cover save.

Ruins are not area terrain, they are ruins, thus you gain the normal +1 to your cover save for gtg in ruins.

Both are 3+ base cover saves.

The base of a ruin is area terrain...

Yes it is. Either way the cover save from going to ground would be a 3+.

Didn't someone put up a poll explaining the two options and 12 gazillion people voted and the numbers ended up like.... 3+ 49% / 2+ 51% resulting in 915 pages of an endless argument that can only possibly be answered by a FAQ?

I think this is relevant:

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/07/the-truth-about-cover-saves-in-40k/

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
I think this is relevant:

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/07/the-truth-about-cover-saves-in-40k/

There is a problem here in that they fail to read it as a logic statement.
Here is the whole rule in context.

p91 wrote:Area terrain is always difficult terrain. Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured. Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

You will note, it specifically mentions "their cover save". It does not say "the", which I feel is important.
So how do we determine the models cover save?

p18 wrote:DETERMINING COVER SAVES
If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body (as defined on page 8) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save.

So if I am looking at a model and 25% of it is obscured by a ruin it receives a 4+ cover save. *Its* cover save is 4++.
That being said, if it's also in area terrain it has not only 4++ but also a 5+ cover save for being in area terrain.

That means that it's quite possible for a model to have multiple cover saves and in fact is covered on p19

p19 wrote:MODELS WITH MORE THAN ONE SAVE
Sometimes, a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save - a good example is a Space Marine Captain who is protected by both power armour and a force field from his Iron Halo. As if this wasn't enough, the model might be in cover as well. In these cases, a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.

If a model can benefit from different types of cover, for example, being behind a bloodthorn hedge (6+ cover save) and a barricade
(4+), the model uses the best cover save available (in this case 4+).

In the rules, it clearly tells us that it a model with multiple cover saves "always" uses the best one. (it's right there "it has the advantage of always using the best available save."). This means that even if I wanted to use the 5++ area terrain save I could *not*.

So how does this actually work? Do I have both cover saves or not? The answer is you have both but can only ever use one. That means that "their cover save" is *always* the best one. In the context of the argument presented 3++ and BOLS are incorrect in their assertions. While it might be intended that that a model without stealth or shrouded could never have a 2++ cover save, because of the RAW, "their cover save", it includes any and all cover save they have, whether it's from a bloodthorn hedge (6+ cover save), a barricade(4+) or area terrain (5+).

All of those constitute "their cover save". So whatever your cover save is... it gets "+2 to their cover save" if they are also in area terrain. It works as a simple Boolean check at that point because of the lack of specification in the RAW. So by RAW I have to use the 4+ as I have "the advantage of always using the best available save" and then I get +2 because I am also in area terrain. You literally cannot do what 3++ or BOLS suggest, else it would have better served as simply writing "Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive a 3+ cover save". That's not what it says and why the articles on BOLS & 3++ are wrong.

robzidious wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

robzidious wrote:
It's pretty clear, from what I've read.

Models that gtg in area terrain receive a +2 to their cover save.

Ruins are not area terrain, they are ruins, thus you gain the normal +1 to your cover save for gtg in ruins.

Both are 3+ base cover saves.

The base of a ruin is area terrain...

Yes it is. Either way the cover save from going to ground would be a 3+.

Your math is off.

Why are you not applying the rule about gaining +2 to the cover save for GTG in area terrain?

4+ from the ruin, GTG in area terrain +2 = 2+ cover, not a 3+ cover.

Previos threads -
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/532801.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/524589.page#5625947

Until the people that claim you can't gain the +2 unless you take the area terrain cover save can back up their position with actual rules we can ignore them.

You can't ignore the person you are playing against without ending the game (i.e. conceding). Which brings us back to what I already answered. Some people feel that it's wrong to add the +2 cover to any save available, so discuss this before the game unless you want to have a fight and/or roll-off.

I meant online, irl is a different matter, some people will need convincing to play by the rules of the game.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Until the people that claim you can't gain the +2 unless you take the area terrain cover save can back up their position with actual rules we can ignore them.

I think you'll find that if you read the previous threads the rules are there supporting that opinion. However there is some ambiguity, not much but some. An FAQ would be helpful but I'm inclined to take Mannahnin's approach and use the less powerful of the two until it's FAQ'd. Saying that you can ignore someones opinion on an ambiguous rule because you failed to read the previous threads and the opposing opinions cited rules and interpretation is rather childish.

 Bausk wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Until the people that claim you can't gain the +2 unless you take the area terrain cover save can back up their position with actual rules we can ignore them.

I think you'll find that if you read the previous threads the rules are there supporting that opinion. However there is some ambiguity, not much but some. An FAQ would be helpful but I'm inclined to take Mannahnin's approach and use the less powerful of the two until it's FAQ'd. Saying that you can ignore someones opinion on an ambiguous rule because you failed to read the previous threads and the opposing opinions cited rules and interpretation is rather childish.

I read them and I disagree that the opinions of the 3+ side should be considered a valid candidate for the truth as it is based on shaky logic and twisting interpretation to suit their theory. The other side, however, is backed up by the rules written down in the rulebook.

OK so then are we in agreement? Discuss with your group or wait for GW to FAQ it? Because every time this topic comes up, it is the same arguments made by the same people with no budging.

The rules for area terrain give a +2 to your cover save and doesn't have any language that limits it to the cover provided by the area terrain.

Just as Going to Ground doesn't limit it to improving your cover save to open ground.

If you are 25% obscured by ruins, and in area terrain, and choose to go to ground, you get a +2 to your cover save. Meaning a 2+ from units shooting through the ruins and a 3+ from units shooting from another location. Being in area terrain doesn't make the ruins disappear.

Don't forget, open ground is also a terrain feature, with rules and everything. If you would only get the existing cover from the terrain feature that you occupy, then going to ground when on open ground would only give you 6+ even if you were behind a ruin. Otherwise you would take the 4+ from the ruin or whatever you happened to be behind.

This was part of the discussion over at BoLS. Still working out the other part with a fellow, but that's not the topic specified here.