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 just got back into 40k with some friends and we were playing a Purge the Alien so every point counted. I need clarification because our 2k vs. 2k blood bath ended in a 15-15 tie, but there was a rule dispute in the bottom of turn 7.

I needed a score and I found a lone fire warrior hiding in the doorway of some ruins. The warrior is pretty obscured (I can see about 25%). So I take aim with my remaining 3 salamanders that run out into the open to score the game winning point. He goes to ground and I am able to score 1 wound on him. He rolls a 2 (of course), I do a little dance, and he says he made the save. I remain calm, call over the other people to argue the rule but they come to the consensus that since he is pretty well hidden in the doorway, we should make it a 3+ cover and extra +1 for going to ground. I disagree, because that subjective consensus is a slippery slope. Area terrain 5+, ruins 4+, fortifications 3+ and we declared it all prior to the game. But, I don't want to make a stink and I let it go. Tie game... 4 hours and a tie game....

So, oh great minds of the 41st millennia. What would your decision be?

Was the Fire Warrior considered to be in Area Terrain? If so, he'd be at a 4+ for ruins, +1 for GtG, +1 for GtG in Area Terrain, for a total of a 2+. If he wasn't in area terrain then your opponents were wrong and that Fire Warrior was dead.

Your opponent cheated. There is absolutely no rule that says that your cover save improves if your model is "really hidden". If the model is at least 25% obscured (but not 100% out of LOS) by the walls of the ruin it gets a 4+ cover save, improved to a 3+ by going to ground. If the model is within the area terrain section at the base of the ruin it gets a 5+ cover save, improved to a 3+ by going to ground. And of course since fire warriors have defensive grenades these saves would be improved by +1 against attacks from within 8" as long as the unit doesn't go to ground.

However if he was obscured by the ruin (25% or more) and he chose Going to Ground and he was in area terrain (+2 to his cover save) then he would have a 4+ cover modified by +2 for the GTG in area terrain.

Ergo 2+ cover save.

 DeathReaper wrote:
However if he was obscured by the ruin (25% or more) and he chose Going to Ground and he was in area terrain (+2 to his cover save) then he would have a 4+ cover modified by +2 for the GTG in area terrain.

Ergo 2+ cover save.

But that's not the case. OP says the "ruling" was a 3+ cover save for being "well hidden by the doorway", improved to a 2+ by going to ground.

He is right that he had a 2+ cover save, he is wrong that he got it for being "really well hidden".

 PrinceRaven wrote:
He is right that he had a 2+ cover save, he is wrong that he got it for being "really well hidden".

He may be right that he had a 2+ cover save. It hasn't been ascertained if the ruins were based, and if so if the Fire Warrior was within the base or if the base was being considered area terrain.

True, I was just assuming based on the fact that pretty much every ruin I've ever seen was based and that doorways are generally on the ground floor and thus on the base. I recognise my failing, and will be sure to correct it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
However if he was obscured by the ruin (25% or more) and he chose Going to Ground and he was in area terrain (+2 to his cover save) then he would have a 4+ cover modified by +2 for the GTG in area terrain.

Ergo 2+ cover save.

But that's not the case. OP says the "ruling" was a 3+ cover save for being "well hidden by the doorway", improved to a 2+ by going to ground.

I know that, I was offering an example of a situation in which the model would be able to claim a 2+ cover save. (It seems like the model in the OP was obscured by the ruin itself, and if that model was on the ground floor, and the ruin had a base that the model was in a 2+ cover is exactly what that model should have received).

Of course you know as well as I that "being "well hidden by the doorway"" does not improve a cover save.

A model can be 99.99999% out of sight behind and obscured by a ruin and all it gets is a 4+ cover save. If it is 99.99999% out of sight behind and obscured by trees etc... in a Forest all it gets is a 5+ cover save.

So if I understand correctly:

Ruins 4+ save
Going to ground in normal terrain +1 to save
Going to ground in area terrain +2 to save
Going to ground in ruins & area terrain is a 2+ modifier on the 4+ save = 2+ save

And finally, line of sight is line of sight, if you can see the model you can shoot it and the cover save is granted when 25% or more of the model is obscured, it does not get better because more of the model is obscured.

^ You are 100% spot on.

 aliusexalio wrote:
Going to ground in ruins & area terrain is a 2+ modifier on the 4+ save = 2+ save

Just note that this is assuming you're playing by strict RAW that going to ground in area terrain increases all of your cover saves by +2 instead of just the cover save from the area terrain. If you think it's RAI that the area terrain bonus is only supposed to apply to the area terrain cover save then going to ground in the area terrain of a ruin while behind the ruin itself would give you a 3+ cover save (4+ save +1) and another 3+ cover save (5+ save +2).

^ This is YMDC, we generally assume people are playing by the rules, having a caveat at the end of every post saying "unless you're playing by house-rules" is unnecessary.

I mean, if you're going to house-rule stuff what's even the point of going to YMDC in the first place?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
^ This is YMDC, we generally assume people are playing by the rules, having a caveat at the end of every post saying "unless you're playing by house-rules" is unnecessary.

I mean, if you're going to house-rule stuff what's even the point of going to YMDC in the first place?

You do understand the difference between house rules like "2+ cover saves are too good, GTG doesn't work that way" and RAI arguments like "the wording is ambiguous and was intended to say X even if you can argue that it says Y", right?. For example, when discussing the LOS rules we don't waste time asking whether the shooting model has eyes or is wearing a helmet since we all know that even if you can make a RAW argument that models with helmets can't shoot the RAW is absurd and RAI is that a model draws LOS from its eyes or appropriate equivalent.

In this case the rule says that a model that goes to ground in area terrain gets a +2 bonus to its cover SAVE, singular, which suggests that the singular save in question is the one granted by area terrain and GW forgot to consider the possibility of a model having multiple cover saves. That's not a house rule, it's an argument that the rules of the game just work that way already.

I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll just say that I do understand that something is RAI when the rules in question are either an obvious mistake, break the game (or at least certain units) or are ambiguous and we have to determine what the intent behind the rule was. You and I disagree that the g2g bonus only being +2 on your cover save if it's area terrain fitting that description.

 Peregrine wrote:

In this case the rule says that a model that goes to ground in area terrain gets a +2 bonus to its cover SAVE, singular, which suggests that the singular save in question is the one granted by area terrain and GW forgot to consider the possibility of a model having multiple cover saves. That's not a house rule, it's an argument that the rules of the game just work that way already.

Since the question is about what save the model would get - I want to throw my hat into the ring that the save is a 3+ save. I think if you read the area terrain rules in context, it is clear that the ruin does not benefit from the additional +1 for being in area terrain.

Very well, it seems to be decided we will have this argument.

"Models in a unit that has gone to ground lmmnediately receive +l to their cover saving throws." - page 18
"Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." - page 91

What does the +2 do? It replaces the +1.
Where does the +1 go? All your cover saves.
Where does the +2 go? All your cover saves.

That is the conclusion I reach when reading the rule in context. You arrive at it only replacing the +1 on area terrain when you ignore the context of the Go to Ground rules.

This is the point of view my marines had (salamander is where the fire warrior was). The only "area terrain" I could think of besides walls and floor in the ruins are the little pebbles. Hope this helps.

Was there an agreed upon cover save on the ruins?
I vote you got the kill btw.

Fallasur wrote:


This is the point of view my marines had (salamander is where the fire warrior was). The only "area terrain" I could think of besides walls and floor in the ruins are the little pebbles. Hope this helps.

I see nothing, Link the pic again maybe?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Models in a unit that has gone to ground lmmnediately receive +l to their cover saving throws." - page 18
"Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." - page 91

Note the key difference between those statements.

The first statement about going to ground applies to a model's saveS, plural.

The second statement about going to ground in area terrain applies to a model's save, singular.

Going to ground in area terrain can only improve a single cover save, and the model has (at least) two cover saves available. The sentence as-written makes no sense, so you have to finish it by assuming an implied clarification on which single save the bonus applies to. You have three choices for which single save to refer to:

1) The save granted by the area terrain. IMO this is what was intended by the rule, as it makes the most sense in context both rulse-wise and fluff-wise.

2) The save your model is about to take. You can interpret it this way, but I don't think it fits the context very well.

3) Undefined. The game breaks and can not continue until you make a house rule to fix it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Models in a unit that has gone to ground lmmnediately receive +l to their cover saving throws." - page 18
"Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." - page 91

Note the key difference between those statements.

The first statement about going to ground applies to a model's saveS, plural.

The second statement about going to ground in area terrain applies to a model's save, singular.

Going to ground in area terrain can only improve a single cover save, and the model has (at least) two cover saves available. The sentence as-written makes no sense, so you have to finish it by assuming an implied clarification on which single save the bonus applies to. You have three choices for which single save to refer to:

1) The save granted by the area terrain. IMO this is what was intended by the rule, as it makes the most sense in context both rulse-wise and fluff-wise.

2) The save your model is about to take. You can interpret it this way, but I don't think it fits the context very well.

3) Undefined. The game breaks and can not continue until you make a house rule to fix it.

The difference in the two statements is that the second sentence is talking about the modifier that the first sentence granted you. That first sentence gives a bonus to any cover saves.

Agree with Peregrine..

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Models in a unit that has gone to ground lmmnediately receive +l to their cover saving throws." - page 18
"Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." - page 91

Note the key difference between those statements.

The first statement about going to ground applies to a model's saveS, plural.

The second statement about going to ground in area terrain applies to a model's save, singular.

They also refer it as a 'cover save' and 'cover saving throws'. This difference can mean the world in conversational English A models cover save can refer to the saving throw it currently making.

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Models in a unit that has gone to ground lmmnediately receive +l to their cover saving throws." - page 18
"Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." - page 91

Note the key difference between those statements.

The first statement about going to ground applies to a model's saveS, plural.

The second statement about going to ground in area terrain applies to a model's save, singular.

Going to ground in area terrain can only improve a single cover save, and the model has (at least) two cover saves available. The sentence as-written makes no sense, so you have to finish it by assuming an implied clarification on which single save the bonus applies to. You have three choices for which single save to refer to:

1) The save granted by the area terrain. IMO this is what was intended by the rule, as it makes the most sense in context both rulse-wise and fluff-wise.

2) The save your model is about to take. You can interpret it this way, but I don't think it fits the context very well.

3) Undefined. The game breaks and can not continue until you make a house rule to fix it.

Or they're referring to the save of multiple models. Stealth refers to entire units, pluralising "unit" to indicate any unit, while the area terrain rules have no reference to multiple models and are pluralising "model" to indicate any model. For another example of this see the Mark of Tzeentch: "Models with the Mark of Tzeentch have +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 3+)." If using the singular save references a particular save, which Invulnerable save does it reference for a MoT Chaos Lord with Terminator Armour and a Sigil of Corruption?

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Models in a unit that has gone to ground lmmnediately receive +l to their cover saving throws." - page 18
"Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1." - page 91

Note the key difference between those statements.

The first statement about going to ground applies to a model's saveS, plural.

The second statement about going to ground in area terrain applies to a model's save, singular.

Going to ground in area terrain can only improve a single cover save

Incorrect, going to ground in area terrain follows the rules for going to ground, which applies to all of your cover saves. Even if it did only apply to one cover save, it doesn't limit us as to which one, so you can apply it to the cover save you're currently taking, making it functionally identical to simply replacing the going to ground bonus as the rule actually states it does.

Fragile wrote:
The difference in the two statements is that the second sentence is talking about the modifier that the first sentence granted you. That first sentence gives a bonus to any cover saves.

Yes, but that doesn't change anything. The second sentence changes the modifier from +1 to +2 for one save.

Chrysis wrote:
Or they're referring to the save of multiple models.

No. In both cases "models" is plural, so that can't be the difference. It is very clearly referring to all cover saves a model possesses in the first sentence, and a single cover save in the second sentence.

If using the singular save references a particular save, which Invulnerable save does it reference for a MoT Chaos Lord with Terminator Armour and a Sigil of Corruption?

Good question. Looks like you have a similar problem there, and probably a harder one to resolve. At least in this case you have the context to help you figure out that "save" is probably referring to the cover save granted by the area terrain that is granting the +2 bonus.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Incorrect, going to ground in area terrain follows the rules for going to ground, which applies to all of your cover saves. Even if it did only apply to one cover save, it doesn't limit us as to which one, so you can apply it to the cover save you're currently taking, making it functionally identical to simply replacing the going to ground bonus as the rule actually states it does.

Go back and read what I posted.

Going to ground improves all of your cover saves by +1.
Going to ground in area terrain improves the GTG bonus for a single save. It does not say "improves the GTG bonus by +1", which would apply to all cover saves. It specifically singles out one and only one save to receive the improved bonus.

You are now making the assumption that the single "save" is the one you wish to roll, rather than the one granted by the area terrain. There is no good reason to make that assumption, and a very good reason to assume the opposite.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, but that doesn't change anything. The second sentence changes the modifier from +1 to +2 for one save.

It does not say that the +2GTG is to their area terrain cover save. It says its to their cover save. Area terrain is not specified at all

[

 PrinceRaven wrote:

You are now making the assumption that the single "save" is the one you wish to roll, rather than the one granted by the area terrain. There is no good reason to make that assumption, and a very good reason to assume the opposite.

You say incorrect, I say disagree.

Yours is a classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it. You want the best cover save, from ruins, and you want the best cover save bonus, from area terrain. They are defined separately and there is no specific rule that says the area terrain bonus applies to a cover save in ruins.

WE play tyranids and orks, which rely heavily on cover saves, but would never take that bonus because there's no specific evidence for it.

Ok, let's say that for some reason it only replaces the GtG bonus for one of your cover saves, which cover saves am I limited to applying the bonus to? Please support your answer using rules, not assumptions.