Stacking cover saves?

[iamian]

do cover saves stack? Was fighting tau the other day and he claimed he had a 3+ cover save in open terrain on a devilfish. still not clear how this is possible.

But, for example, if I have a unit of eldar jetbikes that moved and turboboosted they have a 4+ cover.

if the also have a warlock with conceal do they then get a 3+ cover save?

[Dalleron]

I think this is covered in the USR section involving stealth and shrouded.

[Nabterayl]

Cover saves do not stack, but they can be improved. If you have a 4+ cover save and a 5+ cover save available to you, the best you can claim is a 4+ cover save. See page 19, "Models with More Than One Save."

On the other hand, some rules state that they improve an existing cover save. Tau can purchase (and generally do, in my experience) Disruption Pods for their vehicles, which give the vehicle the Shrouded special rule from more than 12" away. Shrouded improves cover saves by 2 (see page 41). Since a moving skimmer already has a 5+ cover save from the Jink special rule (see pages 83 and 38), a Shrouded skimmer that also moves has its 5+ cover save improved by 2, which is 3+.

[Tynskel]

I disagree that the best you can get is 4+. This is completely situational. If all you are seeing is a hand, I am willing to grant +2 maybe even +3.

[Nabterayl]

I disagree that the best you can get is 4+. This is completely situational. If all you are seeing is a hand, I am willing to grant +2 maybe even +3.
... are you feeling okay? You're perfectly welcome to play that way, but the question wasn't about what the cover save rules should be, or even what the effects are of being highly obscured. It's not like you to chime in with non sequiturs that way :p

[Tynskel]

Well, I wouldn't consider it a non-sequitur. They are asking if cover saves 'stack'. You can totally imagine a situation where you have multiple types of cover ending up with just a hand being seen. What I offered was a 'stacked' cover save.

[Nabterayl]

Ahhh ... I see what you're saying. I disagree, though, that if you are 50% obscured by 5+ cover and 49% obscured by 4+ cover you are entitled (according to the rules) to anything better than a 4+ cover save.

[Tynskel]

Yeah, but I think it is absurd to get, at best, a 4+ save if you can only see a hand.
I am on a trip, and won't have the big book in front of me for a while, but I vaguely remember that you can modify the terrain cover saves. Especially before the game begins the book states to discuss the terrain and cover with your opponent.

[OrksOrksOrks]

Yeah, but I think it is absurd to get, at best, a 4+ save if you can only see a hand.
I am on a trip, and won't have the big book in front of me for a while, but I vaguely remember that you can modify the terrain cover saves. Especially before the game begins the book states to discuss the terrain and cover with your opponent.

If you can only see a hand the model isnt in line of sight.

[Wolfshade]

What you want is a ruin (4+) and then bolster it with a techmarine (3+) and put scouts with cammo cloaks (2+).

[spaceman91]

I got so much hate at a torny for using a hammerhead with a constant cover save.

[Tynskel]

If you can only see a hand the model isnt in line of sight.

okay okay. Shoulder pad. leg. head... whatever.

[Mr.Pickelz]

The other thing to note is the Objective Scatterfield(i think it's this one) which improves, and is cumulative with stealth/shrouded, by +1. Therefore, Units that start with a 4+ Cover Save can get to a 1+ Cover Save. However 1's always fail so you will never get better than a 2+ (pg. 19, Maximum Save)

Ork Warbikers who start with a 4+ cover due to Exhaust Cloud can get Stealth/Shrouded by Nightfighting and then run around with a 3+ or 2+ cover save against longer range stuff :) in all my games that come up, these guys are pretty resilient unless someone takes heavy flamers... (I'm looking at you IG...)

[Nabterayl]

The only levels of obscurement 6th edition cares about are 0% of the target zone, greater than 0% and less than 25% of the target zone, and 25% or greater of the target zone. Only in the last case do you get a cover save, and how good that cover save is depends on what you're sheltering behind, not how much of you is sheltering behind it. While it's true players can agree beforehand what terrain provides what level of cover rather than using the defaults provided in the book, a target whose target zone is 99% obscured behind 6+ cover still only gets a 6+ cover save, while a target whose target zone is 25% obscured behind 3+ cover still gets a 3+ cover save. A target that is (additively) 5% obscured behind 3+ cover, 10% behind 4+ cover, and 15% behind 5+ cover gets a 3+ cover save.

Whether that makes sense is a question of taste, I think. Personally I rationalize it like this: the cover rules in various places conflate the likelihood that the shooter doesn't take the shot at all, the likelihood that the shooter does take the shot but is aiming at the wrong point, and the likelihood that he takes the shot and is aiming at the right point but the shot is stopped by intervening cover. However, in no case is the target assumed to present the profile we see on the tabletop; the "real" warriors take shelter under fire. The 25% threshold is simply the minimum amount of obstruction needed for a warrior to squeeze himself behind. Thus, the 99%-behind-6+-cover scenario represents, to me, the poor likelihood that the cover will stop the shot or that the shooter will be fooled into shooting at the wrong place, while the 25%-behind-3+-cover scenario represents the high likelihood that the cover will stop the shots and the poor likelihood that the shooter will be fooled into shooting at the wrong place.

[Tynskel]

I understand, however, again the rules talk about cover also disrupting the shooter's shot. The idea behind granting a better cover save when you can see less than 5% of the valid target is just a representation of messed up shots.

[Nabterayl]

Well, sure. I'm not saying that doesn't make sense, or that it's not a sensible way to play. Just that the cover rules aren't written that way. But I think we're way off topic at this point.

[Tynskel]

Well, sure. I'm not saying that doesn't make sense, or that it's not a sensible way to play. Just that the cover rules aren't written that way. But I think we're way off topic at this point.

Well, the cover rules are and they are not written that way. They only discuss the 25% and the 100% situations, however, the board setup rules state that you can may change how cover works, that it is up to you and your opponent to define these properties.

Now, as for forum topic being off topic:
That is quite a possibility.

[MadSpy]

do cover saves stack? Was fighting tau the other day and he claimed he had a 3+ cover save in open terrain on a devilfish. still not clear how this is possible.

But, for example, if I have a unit of eldar jetbikes that moved and turboboosted they have a 4+ cover.

if the also have a warlock with conceal do they then get a 3+ cover save?

To return to the OP's question:

As per Nabterayl's answer, yes, a devilfish can have a 3+ cover save in open terrain provided it a) moved in the last turn AND b) has disruption pods AND c) you are shooting at it from more than 12" away. If it went flat out, it gets a 2+. Until we hear otherwise, Jink stacks with Stealth and Shrouded.

Conceal does not give Stealth, it gives a specific cover save (Eldar Codex, p.28, unless I missed an FAQ somewhere), so turboboosted jetbikes would not get a 3+ with a warlock. The turboboost save is better than Conceal, so that's the one that counts.

[Wolfshade]

Now, as for forum topic being off topic:
That is quite a possibility.

1st rule of derailment: no one talks about the derailment.
You pair have a lot to learn...