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.

If one of my units are obscured by ruin, but aren't in the ruins will they receive a 4+ cover save or a 5+. I believe it is a 4+ as it says wether or not they are 25% obscured they receive a 4+, however my friend thinks it is a 5+ as they aren't actually in the ruins.

There is an example in the rulebook that shows orks "partially obscured" by ruins which get a 4+ cover save.

Using that example, we can then assume that obscurement provides the same cover save as the cover that obscures them.

By the RAW, you have to be in the ruins to receive a 4+ cover save, otherwise it's just a 5+ cover save. If you don't know the people you're playing with, assuming this to be the case will almost always be fine.

However, there are many groups that play it as a 4+ if it's through a ruin too. Make sure to discuss it with your opponent before the game if at all possible!

Also, for just you and your friend, you can try creating your own datasheet for the terrain (the rules even encourage you to do so!), and write up the rules your group wishes to use.

There is a RAW argument to be made that it is only 5+, but I think the RAI is that it be 4+ (as shown by the example from the BRB - I don't think that's a mistake).

HIWPI: the cover save you get from being obscured is the same as the cover save you would get from standing in that terrain piece.

 DanielBeaver wrote:
There is a RAW argument to be made that it is only 5+, but I think the RAI is that it be 4+ (as shown by the example from the BRB - I don't think that's a mistake).

HIWPI: the cover save you get from being obscured is the same as the cover save you would get from standing in that terrain piece.

Is a direct explaination with pictures in the main rulebook not RAW?

RAW says "Unless otherwise specified" it's a 5+ cover save. It also says "You get a 4+ cover save when in ruins." I would say that it specifies specifically for ruins in the ork example. For any other type of terrain you could argue RAW is 5+, but that is clearly not RAI.

Page 77 gives an example of a vehicle taking a cover save just for being obscured: "5+ for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin and so on". I think that's unambiguous.

 DanielBeaver wrote:
There is a RAW argument to be made that it is only 5+, but I think the RAI is that it be 4+ (as shown by the example from the BRB - I don't think that's a mistake)..

The example in the BRB has the Orks in the terrain piece.

You get the 4+ for being in ruins. Any other time you are sufficiently obscured by them, you would get the 5+.

 insaniak wrote:

 DanielBeaver wrote:
There is a RAW argument to be made that it is only 5+, but I think the RAI is that it be 4+ (as shown by the example from the BRB - I don't think that's a mistake)..

The example in the BRB has the Orks in the terrain piece.

You get the 4+ for being in ruins. Any other time you are sufficiently obscured by them, you would get the 5+.

Did you read the description below the example's picture?

Furthermore, did you not read the example for vehicles obscured by ruins? I understand that this is vehicle specific, but vehicles only get cover from obscurement.

Colehkxix wrote:
Did you read the description below the example's picture?

Yes. It's wrong, since being in ruins gives you the cover save whether you're obscured or not.

Furthermore, did you not read the example for vehicles obscured by ruins? I understand that this is vehicle specific, but vehicles only get cover from obscurement.

It's impossible to tell from that example if the vehicle is inside or outside the ruin. All you can see is a wall and a vehicle.

Unfortunately, the only sentence that could be considered "otherwise specified" also specifies that a unit must be IN the terrain to gain the 4+ cover

You could interpret "in ruins" to mean "in cover granted by intervening terrain that happens to be ruins"

But that would be something your opponent must agree to, as the rules as written are quite clear

 insaniak wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
Did you read the description below the example's picture?

Yes. It's wrong, since being in ruins gives you the cover save whether you're obscured or not.

Furthermore, did you not read the example for vehicles obscured by ruins? I understand that this is vehicle specific, but vehicles only get cover from obscurement.

It's impossible to tell from that example if the vehicle is inside or outside the ruin. All you can see is a wall and a vehicle.

An example in the book that clearly states how the rules work is wrong?

Also you failed to notice that the bottom most ork isn't actually in the ruins, but is just outside of it. The example is showing that even though some of the marines can clearly see him, he still gets the cover save from the 25% obscurement as he is obscured by ruins from at least one of the models in the Space Marine unit.

It's clear that the example is showing the effects if obscurement for the top most orks, and area terrain for the bottom most orks. That's why for the top most orks it mentions concealment, and the bottom most orks it mentions being "in" terrain.

Why does it matter if a vehicle is "in" a ruin if it does not get cover saves from being "in" terrain?

Vehicles do not gain a cover save simply by being in ruins. They have to be 25% obscured to gain a cover save.

I dont believe that changes the fact that the cover save it gets is 4+

Colehkxix wrote:
An example in the book that clearly states how the rules work is wrong?

Yes. Welcome to 40K.

They manage to screw up at least one of the examples in every rulebook. Disembarking zones, for example, have been incorrect in at least two rulebooks. And 4th edition incorrectly listed hills as an example of area terrain, despite elsewhere pointing out that hills shouldn't be area terrain.

Also you failed to notice that the bottom most ork isn't actually in the ruins, but is just outside of it.

Looks like his base edge just overlaps the boundary of the terrain, to me. But it's impossible to tell for sure as his head is in the way.

The example is showing that even though some of the marines can clearly see him, he still gets the cover save from the 25% obscurement as he is obscured by ruins from at least one of the models in the Space Marine unit.

RIght. Hence, it is incorrect, since he doesn't need to be physically obscured in that example.

Why does it matter if a vehicle is "in" a ruin if it does not get cover saves from being "in" terrain?

It has to be 25% obscured in order to receive the cover save, but the cover save it receives for being in ruins would still be the same as for any other unit in ruins.

So whether or not it is in the ruin is the difference between a 4+ or a 5+ save. The vehicle in the terrain and sufficiently obscured will receive the 4+. A vehicle on the other side of the terrain and sufficiently obscured will only get the 5+.

 insaniak wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
An example in the book that clearly states how the rules work is wrong?

Yes. Welcome to 40K.

They manage to screw up at least one of the examples in every rulebook. Disembarking zones, for example, have been incorrect in at least two rulebooks. And 4th edition incorrectly listed hills as an example of area terrain, despite elsewhere pointing out that hills shouldn't be area terrain.

Also you failed to notice that the bottom most ork isn't actually in the ruins, but is just outside of it.

Looks like his base edge just overlaps the boundary of the terrain, to me. But it's impossible to tell for sure as his head is in the way.

The example is showing that even though some of the marines can clearly see him, he still gets the cover save from the 25% obscurement as he is obscured by ruins from at least one of the models in the Space Marine unit.

RIght. Hence, it is incorrect, since he doesn't need to be physically obscured in that example.

Why does it matter if a vehicle is "in" a ruin if it does not get cover saves from being "in" terrain?

It has to be 25% obscured in order to receive the cover save, but the cover save it receives for being in ruins would still be the same as for any other unit in ruins.

So whether or not it is in the ruin is the difference between a 4+ or a 5+ save. The vehicle in the terrain and sufficiently obscured will receive the 4+. A vehicle on the other side of the terrain and sufficiently obscured will only get the 5+.

The bottom ork's base is clearly not on the terrain. There's no way it is.

And you're saying that two examples in the book are wrong.

Why do you think they get a 5+ cover save when being obscured by ruins?

Colehkxix wrote:
The bottom ork's base is clearly not on the terrain. There's no way it is.

I disagree. Obviously, hence my disagreement.

And you're saying that two examples in the book are wrong.

Yes. This is also the book with the non-functional psychic rules the moment your psyker joins a non-brotherhood unit.

Why do you think they get a 5+ cover save when being obscured by ruins?

Because anything other than a 5+ requires a specific rule saying you get something other than a 5+... and the rules granting something other than a 5+ for ruins requires models to be in the ruins.

 insaniak wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
The bottom ork's base is clearly not on the terrain. There's no way it is.

I disagree. Obviously, hence my disagreement.

And you're saying that two examples in the book are wrong.

Yes. This is also the book with the non-functional psychic rules the moment your psyker joins a non-brotherhood unit.

Why do you think they get a 5+ cover save when being obscured by ruins?

Because anything other than a 5+ requires a specific rule saying you get something other than a 5+... and the rules granting something other than a 5+ for ruins requires models to be in the ruins.

With the ork example, it notes that they get the cover save from being "obscured" and makes no mention to the area terrain. Nothing says they couldn't also get it from the terrain, but the text shows that all 3 orks also get it from obscurement.

Furthermore under vehicle cover it notes that vehicles, when obscured, it takes a cover save "exactly as a non vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin, and so on)." This also supports that ruins give a model a 4+ save from obscurement.

It notes that "Unless otherwise stated all cover provides a 5+ cover save." Under the obscurement section for cover saves. I would take these examples as stating that ruins provides a 4+ cover save when obscuring models.

Colehkxix wrote:
With the ork example, it notes that they get the cover save from being "obscured" and makes no mention to the area terrain. Nothing says they couldn't also get it from the terrain, but the text shows that all 3 orks also get it from obscurement.

Yes, it does. Hence my comment that it's wrong.

They get the 4+ whether or not they are obscured. If they were not in the terrain, it would only be a 5+.

Furthermore under vehicle cover it notes that vehicles, when obscured, it takes a cover save "exactly as a non vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin, and so on)." This also supports that ruins give a model a 4+ save from obscurement.

So long as the model is in the ruin, yes.

It notes that "Unless otherwise stated all cover provides a 5+ cover save." Under the obscurement section for cover saves. I would take these examples as stating that ruins provides a 4+ cover save when obscuring models.

Whether or not that's what the examples state, it's not what the actual rules for Ruins state.

 insaniak wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
With the ork example, it notes that they get the cover save from being "obscured" and makes no mention to the area terrain. Nothing says they couldn't also get it from the terrain, but the text shows that all 3 orks also get it from obscurement.

Yes, it does. Hence my comment that it's wrong.

They get the 4+ whether or not they are obscured. If they were not in the terrain, it would only be a 5+.

Furthermore under vehicle cover it notes that vehicles, when obscured, it takes a cover save "exactly as a non vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin, and so on)." This also supports that ruins give a model a 4+ save from obscurement.

So long as the model is in the ruin, yes.

It notes that "Unless otherwise stated all cover provides a 5+ cover save." Under the obscurement section for cover saves. I would take these examples as stating that ruins provides a 4+ cover save when obscuring models.

Whether or not that's what the examples state, it's not what the actual rules for Ruins state.

Vehicles don't get cover from area terrain, only obscurement by terrain.

That's correct. The conditions that must be met in order for the vehicle to receive a save are different to those for everyone else.

The value of the saving throw that they receive, however, is the same.

A vehicle and an infantryman both in a ruin will both receive the 4+ cover save. The only difference is that the infantryman only has to be in the area terrain, whilst the vehicle has to be in the terrain and 25% obscured.

 insaniak wrote:
That's correct. The conditions that must be met in order for the vehicle to receive a save are different to those for everyone else.

The value of the saving throw that they receive, however, is the same.

A vehicle and an infantryman both in a ruin will both receive the 4+ cover save. The only difference is that the infantryman only has to be in the area terrain, whilst the vehicle has to be in the terrain and 25% obscured.

Your argument relies on the examples being wrong. Not just one example, but two.

The examples say nothing about being "In" the cover, only obscurement. Only obscurement matters in the example, nothing else.

Colehkxix wrote:
Your argument relies on the examples being wrong. Not just one example, but two.

Yup. Because assuming that the examples are correct relies on the actual rule being wrong.

The examples say nothing about being "In" the cover, only obscurement.

That's because they're only examples, and they're wrong.

The actual rule for Ruins does refer specifically to being 'in' the ruin.

We do 4+ even if only obscured by ruins for simplicity's sake

 insaniak wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
Your argument relies on the examples being wrong. Not just one example, but two.

Yup. Because assuming that the examples are correct relies on the actual rule being wrong.

The examples say nothing about being "In" the cover, only obscurement.

That's because they're only examples, and they're wrong.

The actual rule for Ruins does refer specifically to being 'in' the ruin.

The examples don't make anything else written about the rules wrong.

And saying that two clearly written examples in the rulebook are wrong, and that the section underneath vehicle cover saying that all models get a 4+ cover save from obscurement by ruins is wrong, is not an effective argument.

Colehkxix wrote:
The examples don't make anything else written about the rules wrong.

The rules for ruins grant a 4+ for being in the terrain.
The examples suggest that there is a 4+ just for being obscured.

Since those two statements are not the same, one of them has to be wrong. And when you have a an actual rule and an example that differs from the rule, the generally accepted route to take is to assume that the rule is correct and the example is not.

YMMV, obviously.

And saying that two clearly written examples in the rulebook are wrong, and that the section underneath vehicle cover saying that all models get a 4+ cover save from obscurement by ruins is wrong, is not an effective argument.

It is when they're wrong.

 insaniak wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
The examples don't make anything else written about the rules wrong.

The rules for ruins grant a 4+ for being in the terrain.
The examples suggest that there is a 4+ just for being obscured.

Since those two statements are not the same, one of them has to be wrong. And when you have a an actual rule and an example that differs from the rule, the generally accepted route to take is to assume that the rule is correct and the example is not.

YMMV, obviously.

And saying that two clearly written examples in the rulebook are wrong, and that the section underneath vehicle cover saying that all models get a 4+ cover save from obscurement by ruins is wrong, is not an effective argument.

It is when they're wrong.

I don't understand the logic that, as they're not the same, one has to be wrong. There's nothing to say that they can't both be right.

RAI points towards obscurement giving the cover save granted by the cover that obscures them.

The reason that they can't both be right is that one of them ignores the restriction imposed by the other, but is only supposed to be an example.


If the example differs from the actual rule, then it's completely non-functional as an example. Because being a representation of the thing it's supposed to be an example of is what examples do.


The rule says that you have to be in the terrain to ge the 4+. There is no rule that says that models get the 4+ just for being obscured by the terrain.

So an example that suggests that being obscured is sufficient to gain the 4+ is clearly incorrect.

If we assume instead that the example is correct, then the rule is wrong, since it makes no mention of what the example is showing.

They can't both be right, because they contain conflicting information.

 insaniak wrote:
The reason that they can't both be right is that one of them ignores the restriction imposed by the other, but is only supposed to be an example.


If the example differs from the actual rule, then it's completely non-functional as an example. Because being a representation of the thing it's supposed to be an example of is what examples do.


The rule says that you have to be in the terrain to ge the 4+. There is no rule that says that models get the 4+ just for being obscured by the terrain.

So an example that suggests that being obscured is sufficient to gain the 4+ is clearly incorrect.

If we assume instead that the example is correct, then the rule is wrong, since it makes no mention of what the example is showing.

They can't both be right, because they contain conflicting information.

They are not mutually exclusive.

The rule for cover says that intervening terrain gives you a 5+.
The rule for Ruins says that being in the ruin instead gives you a 4+

An example picture that says that you get a 4+ for an intervening ruin that you are not actually in does not fit within those rules.

 insaniak wrote:
The rule for cover says that intervening terrain gives you a 5+.
The rule for Ruins says that being in the ruin instead gives you a 4+

An example picture that says that you get a 4+ for an intervening ruin that you are not actually in does not fit within those rules.

You forgot a part, where it says it's 5+ "unless otherwise specified."

It specifies that ruins have 4+ in the examples and under the vehicle obscurement rules.

Therefore it has been "otherwise specified."

Colehkxix wrote:
It specifies that ruins have 4+ in the examples ...

...but not in the actual rules for Ruins.