2+ coversave in ruins with a base

Timatron wrote:

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

But don't feel bad about it! These rule twists that GW releases forces us to discuss and all. If you look at the swedish forum(and major tournies) they all play with 3+ cover save. And at least half of the players there used the same reasoning as you stated about picking either area terrain or ruins cover + bonus. Since RAW vs RAI cannot be settled.

I wish GW would release a faq for this.

But what do people think about this, since the rules for area terrain is in the page for area terrain, you only follow the rules for area terrain. So if you are in area terrain and or want to use the +2 bonus GTG, you must use the rules for area terrain (5+ save).
If you use ruins cover save, you have to use the rules for ruins cover save in the same page thta describes ruins. You may not pick or mix rules for different rules, meaning you cannot mix area terrain cover save rules with ruins cover save rules. That is what we swedes are discussing.

Yeah I believe ETC uses 3+. I think 3+ is probably better for game balance. Either way I don't see it as something worth arguing about so I play whatever my opponent want to play.

Yes ETC was 3+ too.

I would like to point out this "you can only get cover from one type of terrain" means that focus fire would never work as a rule...

Shadows Revenge wrote:

I would like to point out this "you can only get cover from one type of terrain" means that focus fire would never work as a rule...

How so?

I think Shadow mean that if we focus fire Guardsmen in above situation, we see 3 Guardsmen out of the cover of ruins but they are in area terrain. They all GtG. Now I want focus fire the Guardsmen in the area terrain, if people play by the rule that you get 3+ as best save when youre in area terrain and in ruins cover, om my focus fire I'ld choose 3+ saves.

Suddenly you can allocate wounds to the whole Guardsmen squad, since the rule for focus fire say your opponent allocates wounds to every model with equal or worse cover save of my choice. This would never have worked if we played with 2+ rule.

Focus fire and GtG are a different matter entirely. And targets are selected before firing so GtG does not effect the targeted models.

I hate to say it, but focus fire doesn't work that way.
1. You declare focus fire before your enemy has the chance to go to ground and afterwards can only hit models that you were eligible to hit, when you declared to use focus fire, regardless if and how their cover save changed.
2. If the targeted unit was already gone to ground, then focus fire would have been useless to begin with, because all models had the same save.


Personally I think that the problem can't be resolved by discussion. I see both side's arguments as valid. It could be interpreted either way.

So, if I decided for 4+ cover saves, wounds can be allocated to the whole squad since some has 4+ and some have 5+. They GtG, giving them all 3+ cover. So in the end, we can still wipe out the entire squad if they all roll under 3.

If 2+ save argument applies here, some would have had 2+ and some 3+. You can still wound the whole squad, but you'll need to roll all 1s for total fail.

This is gettin complicated and I agree with above for now. The way it looks line now, is a nerd of a FAQ or simply getting along with the opponent.

So if someone chooses to focus fire my warriors (some have 4+ cover the others have 5+). He says I will focus fire anything with a 5+ or worse save. He rolls to hit and to wound, and the I declare I'm going to ground. Suddenly he can't wound anything? As the units that had a 5+ save now have a 3-4+? Is that right? If so that's pretty sneaky.

Mushkilla wrote:

So if someone chooses to focus fire my warriors (some have 4+ cover the others have 5+). He says I will focus fire anything with a 5+ or worse save. He rolls to hit and to wound, and the I declare I'm going to ground. Suddenly he can't wound anything? As the units that had a 5+ save now have a 3-4+? Is that right? If so that's pretty sneaky.

No. You choose the models you want to hit before they GtG. By going to the ground your enemy cannot escape your shooting. That would make focus fire pointless if you have to always take in to the account models going to the ground.

Yeah I was missing:

Quote :

"If a unit subsequently chooses goes to ground, this will not alter which models have wounds allocated to them, even though their cover save has changed."-BRB page 19

For once GW wrote their rules robustly!

And here I was, getting totally excited to read that the FAQs had updates. The only update was about the servo arms?!

C'mon GW, we require answers!

tlronin wrote:

And here I was, getting totally excited to read that the FAQs had updates. The only update was about the servo arms?!

C'mon GW, we require answers!

Yeah, I saw that there were new FAQ's and wondered why nobody had posted links or mentioned them on here.

Then I read them...

So can someone clarify what y'all have come up with as a basis to go by? I understand the idea that any piece of terrain with a base is considered area terrain. Area terrain when GTG gives a +2 to cover conferring a 3+ cover save. If a ruin has a base and you're in the base part of the ruin, would be considered area terrain also, 5+/3+. Can someone explain the focus fire to me like you would a child as I am a little confused by this concept. So focus fire is declared before shooting and is used to focus on a group of models that have mixed cover saves. So some are in 4+ some in 5+ and some not at all. I can choose to fire at only the 5+ and worse. Essentially that is how I understand focus fire to work. So if my unit goes to ground (assuming the 5+ are in area terrain, the 4+ in ruins, and the others not at all) the area terrain models receive a 3+ cover, the ruins receive a 3+ and the guys in the open receive a 6 cover? So before firing my opponent announces he is focus firing on the 5+ and worse only. I announce my unit is going to ground after the shooting and wounds have been worked out. So he can only kill the, once 5+ now 3+, and the now 6+ covered models? Is my understanding of this correct?

Mushkilla wrote:

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.

This actually makes no sense to me.

The wound you take from the ooze is from going to ground in it. Nothing to do with taking a cover saver or not. It's just that you're face down in the ooze.

It neither proves nor disproves the question of whether you would get the +2 to your cover save for the ruin.

(I'm not saying you're wrong on whether you get the +2 or not, just that your theory doesn't necessarily prove your point).

Sounds like you have that entirely correct Doomseer.

Roger dodger thank you

Silverglade wrote:

The wound you take from the ooze is from going to ground in it.  Nothing to do with taking a cover saver or not.  It's just that you're face down in the ooze.

My point, going to ground in area terrain has nothing to do with taking a cover save. It's just you're face down in the terrain. +2 to cover when going to ground, is just that an effect of going face down in said terrain. Exactly the same as taking wounds from ooze.

They even have the same wording.

BRB page 91 wrote:

Models that go to ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

BRB page 103 wrote:

However, any model that goes to ground in industrial ooze must pass a toughness test or suffer a wound with no armour or cover saves allowed.

Models that go to ground in X get Y effect.

This is all by-the-by really. The point is, you can't get a 2+ Coversave without Stealth or another special rule to improve your Coversave. It is rule-mongering of the highest order to claim that just because of a wording discrepancy in the Going-to-ground description regarding area terrain, that that therefore countermands the previous and much more fundamental rule that a model can only benefit from one type of cover at any one time. It is one of the many examples in the,frankly, poorly written and defined ruleset that is 6th Edition 40k, of instances where a bit of common sense needs to be applied. As I've said before, I can't see how GW intended it to be a 2+ Coversave in any normal gameplay circumstances for a number of reasons including the lack of any examples specifically given to support this in the BRB, the points expense of armour conferring a 2+ save and various others that I won't go into now.

I get it now Mush.

Thanks for the clarification! I am with you now.

Timatron wrote:

This is all by-the-by really. The point is, you can't get a 2+ Coversave without Stealth or another special rule to improve your Coversave.

There is a valid argument that you can indeed get a 2+ cover save. The fact that you disagree with that does not make it go away or mean that you're right and others are wrong.

Timatron wrote:

that that therefore countermands the previous and much more fundamental rule that a model can only benefit from one type of cover at any one time.

It has been pointed out to you several times, that the +2 to cover saves for going to ground in area terrain is an "effect" of the terrain, and no where does it say you cannot benefit (or be penalised) from multiple pieces of terrain. The Ooze example illustrates this. A +2 to cover saves does not constitute cover in and of itself it is just a bonus to cover.

Timatron wrote:

It is rule-mongering of the highest order to claim that...

I'm not sure it was intentional, but I don't think personal attacks like that are warranted, you don't know anything about me.

I let my opponent choose how they want to play it at the beginning of the game, because at the end of the day I play 40k to have a good time.

However it doesn't stop the fact that currently as the rules are written you can get a 2+ cover save from going to ground in area terrain and being 25% obscured by some form of 4+ cover. As a result if someone where to argue for a 2+ cover save he would have a solid argument, and to ridicule him for said argument would just illustrate ones own ignorance.

Sadly a lot of game clubs operate using these mob mentality bully tactics, where mob reason triumphs over logical reasoning. If your club thinks a 2+ cover save is too powerful house rule against it, there's nothing wrong with that, it's our game we can do what we want with it, my club doesn't use mysterious terrain or objectives as we have house ruled them out. Just don't argue that the rules don't allow for it, or that the person who brought it up doesn't have a leg to stand on, as that's just not the case.

Power level is subjective you could just as easily be called a "rule-mongerer of the highest order" for denying your opponents assault army it's 2+ cover save against your gunline. Most agree that shooting is king in 6th edition, and assault is rather impotent, denying that assault unit a 2+ cover save would merely swing things further in shootings favour. Who would you say comes across as the rule mongerer now?

This is why opinion based arguments have no place in a factual discussion.

There is a problem with the rules, and that's why ignoring that problem is a bad idea, as it won't get a much needed FAQ.

It was in no way a personal attack against you Mush, I have nothing but the greatest respect for you. You are absolutely correct, the cover section of the BRB is such a partial cut 'n' paste from the 5th edition book that I made an incorrect assumption and it has made me look quite a fool. I withdraw my statement and apologise unreservedly.

Mushkilla wrote:

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

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

Exactly.