2+ coversave in ruins with a base

Guys,

Have you seen this discussion?

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/08/40k-cover-basics.html

What's your take on this?

P.s.: I'm Danny btw in the comments.

I try to avoid the comments section of BoLS. It makes me feel...dirty.

No were in the rules does it say you can't benefit from two types of terrain at the same time.

This can be made more clear if we consider mysterious terrain. Any model that goes to ground in industrial ooze must pass a Toughness test or suffer a Wound with no armour saves or cover saves allowed.

What this article is saying is that if you have some models in industrial ooze behind a ruin and go to ground you don't get hurt by the ooze because you only benefit from one type of terrain at a time, and you are using the ruin (despite going to ground in ooze).

Area terrain give you a +2 to cover saves when going to ground in addition to a 5+ cover save. Although you can only benefit from one cover save, the +2 to cover save is a bonus that will still apply to you when you go to ground, the same way when you go to ground in ooze behind a ruin you will still have to take a toughness test.

Just a usual 3++ article trying to be "smarter" than everyone.

Yeah, I couldn't stop myself from jumping in... I regret it now.

But some guys are claiming that if you stand in area terrain you only get the 5+ coversave period. Why? Because it says so in the rules:

91, Area Terrain: "Area terrain is always difficult terrain. Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of wether or not they are 25% obscured..."

Well, i disagree ofcourse. Totally out of context! This line of thought is dangerous. Why? Then you'd get a 4+ coversave just by standing on the 1st floor of a ruin wether you' re obscured or not (page 98 ruins basics). That can't be right...

It's yet another poorly worded piece of GW writing that can be interpreted in different ways. Sadly, we've become used to this over the years. If you're playing a friendly game it's unlikely to be an issue as most people will not intepret "Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of wether or not they are 25% obscured..." as meaning they can only ever have a 5+ save in area terrain. If it's a tournament, then it's worth checking with a TO before the game.

@count: you know, if they would've said that to me, the discussion would've been over. It's just that your line of thought never get's validated. Which is frustrating. But indeed, i agree. Gonna stop replying now.

The funny thing is in the original Blog post the 3plusplys authors started arguing in the comments (as AbusePuppy said you could get 2+ cover saves).

Can't stop replying, what's wrong with me?

There are more important things in life... Got... To... Stop...

lol.

I just thought ofthe most dangerous thing you see...

If you follow his line of thought... A model obscured by a ruin wall on the base of the ruin and not G2G would only get 5+ from the area terrain. According to him...

Uhm... Wrong!

.
.
.

Aaand we're back on choosing type of terrain over choosing highest coversave. Hopeless.  

welcome to the wargaming community of 40k, where there is more arguing over the rules than actually playing the game

It does say in the rules quite clearly that a model can only benefit from one save at a time. Let's take the example of a tau firewarrior standing in a piece of area terrain which has ruins on it and some pieces of ruin wall on the base. If he is shot by an AP- weapon, standing in the area terrain but not obscured by any of the walls then his base coversave is 5+ and his armour gives him a 4+, so he would choose his armour save. If he is shot by an AP4 weapon, standing in the area terrain but not obscured by any of the walls then his base coversave is 5+ and his armour gives him no save, so he would choose the coversave. Now, if he goes to ground he can up that save to a 3+ as area terrain gives him +2 to his coversave when going to ground. If he is shot by an AP4 weapon, standing in the area terrain and 25% obscured by one of the walls then his base coversaves are 5+ for the area terrain and 4+ for the wall. Once again his armour gives him no save, so he must now choose a save, either tha area, or the wall. In either case, the best the save can be improved to is 3+, 5+2 for the area or 4+1 for the wall. All the rules needed to figure this out are on pages 19, 91 and 98.

@Timatron:

The +2 to cover saves when going to ground is a bonus special rule for being in area terrain, it is just a bonus not a save. No where does it say it only applies to the cover granted by the area terrain, you simply get this bonus for being in area terrain. You are still only using one cover save, you are merely getting a bonus to it for going to ground  in area terrain. The same way you get a bonus to cover for having the stealth or shrouded special rule.

That's how I read it, but to be honest I play it however my opponent wants to. The same as I do with mysterious objectives and terrain (core rules that everyone pretends don't exist).

Some people appear to be arguing that the area terrain rules mean that you only ever get a 5+ save in area terrain, even if you would normally have a better save. The logic of which escapes me.

Well I personally don't think the RAI was to give models a save as good as terminator armour for hiding behind a wall. You're absolutely right though, RAW it could be interpreted that it was the case.

A succesful cover save of 2+ could be that an obstacle either made the shot miss(the shooter had no clear sight) or the cover absorbed enough of the shot to leave the guy behind cover rather unscathed(his own armor took the rest of the remaining shot).

Cover can definately save against shots, sometimes even better than terminator armour (no clear sight/shot).

Look at how fast Timatron can admit to mushkila there's a logic to it RAWly speaking. Why can't some of those ... at BoLS do that?

I get email notifications of Disqus? Can you turn that off? Or else I'll continue answering, I'm weak like that...

If it's any consolation tlronin, Dakka had a very sensible thread on the matter.

Timatron wrote:

Well I personally don't think the RAI was to give models a save as good as terminator armour for hiding behind a wall. You're absolutely right though, RAW it could be interpreted that it was the case.

I think it makes sense that a model hiding way behind a ruin (so now in open ground) wouldn't have as good a save as a model going to ground right beside the ruin where you assume there would be chunks of rock that used to be part of the building. That is a lot of building to get through penetration wise, but more importantly a lot more to hide behind to obscure vision and therefore accuracy.

A lot of people in my group dont like playing with area terrain rules for the bases of ruins anyways so this doesn't really affect me but I think the 2+ is how I'd interpret the rules.

also I will point out it does make sense realisticly. Standing behind a wall gives you only so much cover, but laying prone makes you not only a smaller target, but harder for you to see... Again when does this game make any sense anyway...

Mushkilla wrote:

This can be made more clear if we consider mysterious terrain. Any model that goes to ground in industrial ooze must pass a Toughness test or suffer a Wound with no armour saves or cover saves allowed.

What this article is saying is that if you have some models in industrial ooze behind a ruin and go to ground you don't get hurt by the ooze because you only benefit from one type of terrain at a time, and you are using the ruin (despite going to ground in ooze).

Area terrain give you a +2 to cover saves when going to ground in addition to a 5+ cover save. Although you can only benefit from one cover save, the +2 to cover save is a bonus that will still apply to you when you go to ground, the same way when you go to ground in ooze behind a ruin you will still have to take a toughness test.

This is still the best argument for either side that I have found. I have used it to convince some people that I play with.

has been playing 4+ in ruins, whoops

I still only think that the best coversave possible from going to ground is a 3+. The reason is that I don't think the intention was to give 2+ saves so easily. It just seems ridiculous to make models so un-killable. I also point to the fact that only being able to benefit from a single save at a time is one of the 'core' rules whereas the other nuances are scattered around in the brb and definitely open to interpretation. The statement that models can only benefit from one type of cover at a time is definitive. There is no grey area with that statement. So the pursuit of a loophole is, to my mind, a bit churlish and nongermane. Just my opinion. Obviously you can do what you like.

I don't regard it as searching for a loophole or benefitting from more than a single save. The GtG bonus is a modifier to a save, not a save in itself. If it was not intended to modify different saves then it would simply say "Models that go to ground in area terrain receive a 3+ cover save". Logically it makes sense that throwing yourself flat on the ground in tall grass would be less effective than throwing yourself on the ground in tall grass behind a wall.

I have absolutely no problem with 2+ cover saves when going to ground. In fact, the only problem I have is that I never actually seem to get a cover save these days due to the amount of Ignores Cover weaponry!

Timatron wrote:

The statement that models can only benefit from one type of cover at a time is definitive.

Yes, but terrain piece and cover are two different things. As the terrain you are in can have other effects.

I'll say it again. No one would have an issue with you being affected by two pieces of terrain at the same time if they played with mysterious terrain (as it makes it quite apparent that you can be affected by two pieces of terrain). A core mechanic that no one uses despite being part of standard games according to the rules.

In fact saying models only benefit from one piece of terrain at a time would be considered looking for a loop hole if people actually used mysterious terrain. As mysterious terrain effects are often not beneficial!

For example:

Any model that goes to ground in industrial ooze must pass a Toughness test or suffer a Wound with no armour saves or cover saves allowed.

You have some models in industrial ooze behind a ruin and they go to ground. They are using the cover save from the ruin, but going to ground in the ooze, now if you you only benefit from one piece of terrain at a time you wouldn't get hurt by the ooze because you only benefit from one type of terrain at a time, and you are using the ruin (despite going to ground in the ooze). Which clearly doesn't make sense, and would been seen as a dodgy way of trying to avoid the damage from the ooze.

However if you can be affected by two pieces of terrain at the same time (which the rules say nothing against). You would take the wounds from going to ground in the ooze despite using the save from the ruin. Which makes sense as after all your guys are diving into industrial aside to increase there save!

In the same light area terrain give you a +2 to cover saves when going to ground in addition to a 5+ cover save. Although you can only benefit from one cover save, the +2 to cover save is a bonus that will still apply to you when you go to ground, the same way when you go to ground in ooze behind a ruin you will still have to take a toughness test.

So to reiterate, the only reason people have a problem with this is because it involves a positive effect from going to ground in area terrain. If it involved a negative effect, then I damn right bet everyone would make you take that ooze test!

There are a lot of negative effects to area terrain in the game, they are in fact part of the standard core mechanics, 99% of the 40k community just chooses to pretend they don't exist. The designers designed terrain to be a risky affair, a 2+ cover save is all well and great but is it worth getting eaten by a Razorwing Nest for?

From page 18:
"Models in a unit that has gone to ground immediately
receive +1 to their cover saving throws."

In 91, area terrain upgrades the rule above to +2. As long as you are in area terrain, it says.

As I understand the rules, the bonus cover save improvement granted by GtG applies to all your cover saves, regardless from what piece of terrain. If you GtG in area terrain, you get +2 instead, as long as your model is in area terrain. And you always automatically get the best save, it is just the rules.

So if I:

-Stand next to a ruin on open terrain and I GtG, I get 4 +1 = 3+ cover save. Simple, there is only one cover save(ruins) and the bonus is flat +1.

-Stand next to a ruin with a base (base = area terrain, pg 98) and I GtG, I automatically use the best cover save available(p. 19) which is from the ruins 4+, area terrain gives me 5+ only. Since I GtG, I immediately get a bonus of +1. But this bonus is upgraded by the area terrain to +2, simply because I'm GtG in area terrain. The bonus gives me +2 to ALL cover saves, regardless of where I get cover save from. Also, I never got to CHOOSE my cover save.

Correct? It sounds like the author of that article thought that depending on which piece of terrain's cover save you use, you are considered in/on it. Or that because you use a terrain's cover save, you get its GtG bonus instead. But as far as I can tell, the rule does not say that you use the GtG bonus depending on what piece of terrain you get your cover save from. The two rules are independant from eachother, I'ld say.

Just a quick question, how and when do you determine what save is the best one? I suspect it is after all modifiers have been calculated and all ignore saves have been worked out, am I right? Where are the rules for this? I can't seem to find em.

I very rarely say this: I am convinced that I was wrong.