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.

 insaniak wrote:

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

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

It doesn't matter if it doesn't say that under the ruins entry. Nothing says you don't get it.

Therefore we would move to the 5+ unless otherwise specified, from concealment.

And then the examples specify it.

When you're trying to determine which rules apply to ruins, it most certainly does matter what it says in the rules for ruins.

That's what the rules for ruins are for.

 insaniak wrote:
When you're trying to determine which rules apply to ruins, it most certainly does matter what it says in the rules for ruins.

That's what the rules for ruins are for.

I'm not disagreeing with what it says under the ruins rule. I am saying that it doesn't specify directly under the ruins rules.

That's why we use what is specified in the examples and text elsewhere, which do specify it.

That doesn't conflict with the directly written ruins rules at all.

My group plays that walls in ruins count as walls, so they give 4+ cover for being obscured whether or not you're in the ruin (as per the rules for walls/barricades). This works well for ruins without bases, since there's no clear definition of whether or not a model is "in" the ruins terrain. This is just how we play it though, I can't claim RAW on it.

Colehkxix wrote:
I am saying that it doesn't specify directly under the ruins rules.l.

And so that should be the end of it .


If nothing is specified in the actual rules, it matters not a jot what the example says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bojazz wrote:
...since there's no clear definition of whether or not a model is "in" the ruins terrain. .

Which would be why ruins should always have bases ..

 insaniak wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
I am saying that it doesn't specify directly under the ruins rules.l.

And so that should be the end of it .


If nothing is specified in the actual rules, it matters not a jot what the example says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bojazz wrote:
...since there's no clear definition of whether or not a model is "in" the ruins terrain. .

Which would be why ruins should always have bases ..

So that's the end of it and you don't get any cover save from being obscured by terrain because it doesn't say anything under the ruins entry?

Why wouldn't you get a save? You're told in the cover rules that toy get a 5+ unless specified otherwise.

So you get a 5+.

Unless you're actually IN the ruin, since the ruin rules specify a 4+ in that situation.

 insaniak wrote:
Why wouldn't you get a save? You're told in the cover rules that toy get a 5+ unless specified otherwise.

So you get a 5+.

Unless you're actually IN the ruin, since the ruin rules specify a 4+ in that situation.

The examples. and the 4th bullet point under "Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets" specify the cover save for being obscured by ruins.

And around we go again.

Examples are not rules. It really is that simple

Colehkxix wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Why wouldn't you get a save? You're told in the cover rules that toy get a 5+ unless specified otherwise.

So you get a 5+.

Unless you're actually IN the ruin, since the ruin rules specify a 4+ in that situation.

The examples. and the 4th bullet point under "Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets" specify the cover save for being obscured by ruins.

There is a difference between a rule, and an example of that rulke

An example cannot introduce a new rule. Think about it. Its an example, NOT the base rule. It can only explain, or represent, the rule. It cannot BE a rule

Do Flying Monstrous Creatures really get a cover save flying over ruins?

If the FMC's base is in the ruin, RAW yes.

As I said. It's unreasonable to just ignore clearly written sections of the rulebook as you like.

Even if you don't believe it's RAW. Would you even go so far as to say it's not RAI that there is a 4+ cover save from ruins obscurement?

Colehkxix wrote:
Even if you don't believe it's RAW. Would you even go so far as to say it's not RAI that there is a 4+ cover save from ruins obscurement?

Yes. The increased cover of ruins to me represents the opportunity to duck into rubble etc. within that feature, versus a flat chance of, "I can't totally see him and might miss" that a standard obscured cover save gives.

Colehkxix wrote:

Even if you don't believe it's RAW. Would you even go so far as to say it's not RAI that there is a 4+ cover save from ruins obscurement?

The examples muddy the water enough that I wouldn't be willing to even try to guess what the RAI was .

It's possibly worth pointing out, though, that last edition ruins did just provide a blanket 4+ cover save. It's possible that this was changed to 5+ for 7th at the last minute , and they just didn't think to update the other sections that still referred to the 4+.

In situations like that , unless there's a good reason not to , I prefer to just stick with the rules as written .

Colehkxix wrote:
As I said. It's unreasonable to just ignore clearly written sections of the rulebook as you like.

An example for a rule which does not exist is not 'clearly written'.

 Ghaz wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
As I said. It's unreasonable to just ignore clearly written sections of the rulebook as you like.

An example for a rule which does not exist is not 'clearly written'.

The rule is there

Obscurement is 5+ unless otherwise specified

Ruins give 4+ so is specifying otherwise

The example verifies this

It's that simple

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
As I said. It's unreasonable to just ignore clearly written sections of the rulebook as you like.

An example for a rule which does not exist is not 'clearly written'.

The rule is there

Obscurement is 5+ unless otherwise specified

Ruins give 4+ so is specifying otherwise

The example verifies this

It's that simple

You've missed the rather important point that ruins only grant a 4+ if a model is IN them

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
Even if you don't believe it's RAW. Would you even go so far as to say it's not RAI that there is a 4+ cover save from ruins obscurement?

Yes. The increased cover of ruins to me represents the opportunity to duck into rubble etc. within that feature, versus a flat chance of, "I can't totally see him and might miss" that a standard obscured cover save gives.

So why are there three sections in the rulebook which say 4+ from obscurement by ruins, and no sections that say it's 5+ from ruins?

Colehkxix wrote:

So why are there three sections in the rulebook which say 4+ from obscurement by ruins, and no sections that say it's 5+ from ruins?

You mean other than the actual rules entry for ruins ?

There are two likely explanations for the discrepancy between different parts of the book . The first , as I mentioned before, is that it was a last minute change from last edition that was not updated correctly, or the 'in' in the ruins rules section is a typo.

It's anybody's guess as to whether either of those is the actual reason , or if it's something else entirely.

 insaniak wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:

So why are there three sections in the rulebook which say 4+ from obscurement by ruins, and no sections that say it's 5+ from ruins?

You mean other than the actual rules entry for ruins ?

There are two likely explanations for the discrepancy between different parts of the book . The first , as I mentioned before, is that it was a last minute change from last edition that was not updated correctly, or the 'in' in the ruins rules section is a typo.

It's anybody's guess as to whether either of those is the actual reason , or if it's something else entirely.

The section under vehicles and obscurement explicitly says you get a 4+ from obscurement by ruins. "If the target is obscured ... it must take a cover save against it exactly like a non-vehicle model would against a Wound (for example a 5+ cover save for a Citadel Wood, a 4+ cover save for a ruin."

The actual entry for ruins says nothing about a 5+. There are 3 sections that say 4+. That's all you need to know.

Colehkxix wrote:
There are 3 sections that say 4+.

Indeed . And the one that contains the actual rules, as opposed to an example, specifies that you have to be IN the ruin to get it .

 insaniak wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
There are 3 sections that say 4+.

Indeed . And the one that contains the actual rules, as opposed to an example, specifies that you have to be IN the ruin to get it .

They all contain the actual rules.

Some cover seems to givea cover save even without obscurement, which is why that is specified in some entries.

Infact from the rules we can see that everything only has one value for their cover save. There's no difference between the "in terrain" or "obscurement" save, only whether or not you also get it for being "in" terrain. The only reason that the 5+ cover save when it is not specified exists, is for cover without a specified save, like the Comms Relay or Ammo Dump.

Nothing says it provides a 5+ in any case. Nothing specifies that it doesn't give a 4+ in any case. Two examples and a rules explaination in the book specifies that it's a 4+ specifically from "obscurement".

The only counter argument that has been presented is "three places in the official Games Workshop Rulebook are wrong" and that: Nothing with regards to obscurement is written under the Ruins entry. There is nothing to say that the examples or explainations in the rulebook are wrong. It does not conflict with the entry for Ruins at all.

Please specify the rule that states you gain a 4+ save from being obscured by ruins

Both of the examples in question are copy/paste from the 6th (or is it 5th edition?) edition book. GW is pretty lazy when it comes to updating rules. Look at the non functional skimmer rule about ending on models. That is a remnant from when skimmers scattered when they were stunned and what not. That is what, 4 editions ago? Welcome to the rules writing abilities of "we sell models" Games Workshop.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Both of the examples in question are copy/paste from the 6th (or is it 5th edition?) edition book. GW is pretty lazy when it comes to updating rules. Look at the non functional skimmer rule about ending on models. That is a remnant from when skimmers scattered when they were stunned and what not. That is what, 4 editions ago? Welcome to the rules writing abilities of "we sell models" Games Workshop.

Are the vehicle obscurement rules also copy paste?

Either way, dang. I keep wondering why I got into 40k in the first place with problems like this. I keep thinking I'll have to look into alternatives.

EDIT: After looking at the example for the orks in cover in the previous rulebook I can see that the text has been modified for the 7th ed rulebook so it is clearer and specifically says "obscured"

In the previous rulebook under vehicle obscurement it notes: "If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a wood and so on)." wheras in the current rulebook it adds on "a 4+ save for ruins" in this text.

The example for the Rhino being obscured is the same.

It seems that the changes to these sections from the previous rulebook is that they specified a 4+ cover save from 'obscurement' both in the ork example and vehicle obscurement section. They did not specify that before.

I am actually very disappointed at how many rules were taken away from 6th edition, with regards to targetting floors of buildings or jumping down from high buildings.

So I'm confused where in the rules does it say that cover from intervening terrain gives you a 5+?

I have "If ... the target model's ... is at least 25% obscured..., Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save. Unless specifically stated otherwise, all cover provides a 5+ save." pg 37

Then for the first paragraph in the terrain types. pg 108

When one of the following rules refers to a model being 'in cover behind' a piece of terrain, this means that the model is at least 25% obscured by the scenery, and is therefore eligible for a cover save. On the other hand, when one of the following rules refers to a model being 'in' a piece of terrain, this means that model, or some part of it, is actually standing on the piece of scenery, whether it is obscured from view or not

Then as been stated Ruins: ... Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

I see the main argument is that intervening terrain gives a 5+ cover, but as I said I can't find that rule. I can fine the rule for intervening terrain giving a cover save, and I can find the rule for Ruins giving a 4+ save.

Cover is anything that obscures the target.

Intervening terrain obscures the target.

Unless stated otherwise, cover grants a 5+ cover save.

Ergo, intervening terrain grants a 5+ cover save, unless the terrain's rules say otherwise.

Ruins specifically grant a 4+ cover save to models IN them.

So, Ruins will grant a 4+ to models in them, and a 5+ to models outside but obscured by them.

As far as the obscured by ruins, obscured is a vehicle thing, have you guys read the rules for Going to Ground?