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.

So had a discussion between two people today on 2+sv in cover with differing views and just wanted to know if there was a definitive ruling on this.

The debate was if a unit with a 2+ sv in cover is hit with an AP-1 attack, if they would retain their 2+ sv because of cover, or that cover could not make a sv better than 3+

The rule states "Does not apply to models with a Save of 3+ or better against attacks with an AP of 0." One person argued that since the attack does not have AP 0, they would get their cover save, making it a 2+; the other person said that since since the save is now 3+ they don't get the benefit of cover and that the text specifically states "3+ or better", and because a 2+ save would never get a benefit from being in cover against AP 0 it wouldn't be specified as part of the rule if it didn't apply in the way they thought.

It was a civil discussion and we just want to know for sure. While I've only seen it played one way, I've been wrong about stuff that I was sure about in the past.

You only do not get the cover bonus if both of the following are true:

-The defending model has a save characteristic of 2+ or 3+
-The attack had an AP of 0

Or if the attack has Ignores Cover.

Also, AP and cover modify *save rolls* not the saves themselves.

So 2+ out of cover hit by AP-1 still have a 2+ save, but you’re at -1 to the dice so they now roll 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (I.e. a natural 2 is now a 1 so fails).

Getting the benefit of cover adds +1 to the roll which counteracts the -1 so a natural 2 passes again.

The no benefit vs AP0 for 3+ or better rule is mainly there so that 3+ saves don’t double in effectiveness vs small arms in cover (which was a bit much in previous editions).

It’s generally irrelevant for 2+ saves, outside of some nice situations where they get -1 save from other means.

The save remains at 2+, though it could be worded more clearly.

I think there's some Nurgle rust thing that gives -1 to armor saves? In that case if a terminator was rusty and shot by a bolter in the forest he would only get a 3+ save. Very uncommon though.