Cover save modifiers

[Shotgun Justice]

Hola all

An unusually contentious issue came up yesterday with my fav opponent.
My Landraider Prometheus fired at a unit of scouts in ruins, with camo cloaks and who were shrouded.

So ruins 4+, camo cloaks +1 and shrouded +2 gives a cover save of 1+. Prometheus reduces cover saves by 1.
My opponent argues that even with the -1 from Battle Auspex he still has a 2+ cover save. I argued that a roll of 2 would be subject to my -1 = fail.
The problem arose because neither Shrouded, nor the Battle Auspex rule, are described as being applied to a dice roll and so subject to the rules on p.5.
The bonuses state "counts its cover save as being 2 points better than normal" for shrouded and "+1 to cover save" for camo cloak.
So camo cloak is a roll modifier but what are Shrouded and Battle Auspex?
At what point are the modifiers applied? Battle Auspex then bonuses = 2+. Bonuses then Battle Auspex = 3+ if we respect Maximum save on p.19

[Nabterayl]

I don't read any of those as roll modifiers. They improve (or worsen) a cover save, which is not conceptually the same thing (even if the result is typically the same).

So the question is whether you improve to 2+ and then worsen to 3+, or worsen to 5+ and then improve to 2+. As far as I know, this is a question that doesn't have a clear-cut answer, because I can't think of any rules aside from Battle Auspex that worsen a save. My inclination, though, is to say that the result should be 3+. As long as we have to pull an order out of thin air, "improve and then worsen" seems more equitable to me than "improve (because even the "base" 4+ cover save from ruins is an improvement over the unit's default cover save), then worsen, then improve again."

[DarkLink]

This isn't Fantasy. He has a 2+ cover save. You reduce it by one. He now has a 3+ cover save.

Edit: Improve goes first, in my opinion, since he gets that improvement while he's just sitting there in cover with his 2+ save. Then you come along and light him up to reduce that to a 3+ when you shoot him. He gets the improvement when he gets the cover save by sitting in the terrain, but it isn't until later when you actually shoot him that you reduce it.

[Shotgun Justice]

Darklink - narratively I agree but the issue of the modifiers not being roll modifiers discussed by Nab means it's a pain.
Instinctively I feel all positives should be applied giving a maximum of 2+ (even if he were to go to ground as well) then the negatives, as Nab argues and how you've reasoned it.

Oh look Forgeworld wrote a rule that doesn't fit the rule set. How'd that happen?

[SacredChao]

Doesn't the rulebook go over Order of Operations? Multiplication/Division first, then Addition/Subtraction? They are at the same time. (4-2-1)+1 yields the same result as (4+1)-2-1. Just because the maximum save is 2+ doesn't mean his camo-cloaks vanish because he's too good at hiding already? If you want Narrative to it, it's so dark at night, the camocloaks aren't helping at all. But when the land raider does it's Battle Auspex thing, the cloaks start muddling the sensors or whatever.

[-Tom-]

Instinctively I feel all positives should be applied giving a maximum of 2+ (even if he were to go to ground as well) then the negatives, as Nab argues and how you've reasoned it.


Hang on, I might be wrong in this (but want to flag it up because then I can be corrected), but is there a "maximum of 2+"? A 1 always fails, but doesn't that mean that theoretically you can have a save of "1+" when you've totted up all the bonuses, it would just be the case that a roll of 1 still fails due to a separate, over-ruling, rule?

So, ruins +camo cloaks +shrouded = 1+ (though a 1 still fails), which is then reduced to 2+ by your Battle Auspex. (I agree with the narrative ordering/reasoning suggested by Darklink).

However, if he went to ground too, it would tot up to "0+" from the bonuses, back to "1+" from the Auspex, but still be a "2+" needed as a 1 always fails?


While one might say that talk of a "0+" makes no sense, it doesn't need to, as there's the overruling rule of 1's failing. So, as I started the post with, I'm probably missing something and await standing corrected.

[rogue.trader.voril]

Pg 19. No save ( armor, cover, or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of a 1 always fails.

[SacredChao]

Pg 19. No save ( armor, cover, or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of a 1 always fails.

So? 2+ is the maximum save possible, but the +3 cover doesn't go away, +3 -1 = +2

Just because there is a cap to how good your modifiers can get, doesn't mean the excess modifiers go away, they are just unnecessary until penalties to cover come into play, which is almost never.