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.

Now I know that MC's don't get cover unless they are 50% covered, but non-MC's can.

Does this mean if you have a guard (or 3) with a tyrant, that the whole squad counts as being in cover?

Hmm, that is an interesting question.

The general rules for cover state that as long as half or more of a unit is in cover, the whole unit is in cover.

The vehicle and MC rules state the only way an MC can claim to be in cover is by 50% obscurement.

Which one trumps the other? I'd say the word 'only' in the 50% rule makes it hard to claim cover any other way (and beleive me, I've tried).

It's the firing models to targeted models in a unit.

The unit is non-MC, and it's a retinue so you cannot pick out the MC.

So, it gets cover.

Tyrant with guard are a unit.

If the majority of the models in the target unit are in cover from the majority of the firers then the whole unit counts as being in cover.

So a Tyrant/Tyrant Guard unit with 2 or more Tyrant guard is going to be able to gain cover from an intervening gaunt unit. But once the unit gets reduced to 1 Tyrant guard, that won't be true anymore.

I follow the logic, but I think there's a argument about not being able to pick out non-MC in retinues.

i.e. I think Tyrant Guard will be granted an 'always' exception.

Stelek wrote:I follow the logic, but I think there's a argument about not being able to pick out non-MC in retinues.

i.e. I think Tyrant Guard will be granted an 'always' exception.

The "majority" of models have to be in cover for the unit to get a cover save. When you get down to one Tyrant and one Tyrant Guard, the Tyrant Guard will be in cover from intervening Gaunts but the Tyrant (a Monstrous Creature) would not be in cover as 50% of his body is not obscured.

So at that point the whole unit (the Tyrant and 1 Guard) will no longer be in cover unless the Tyrant gets 50% of his body obscured and the Tyrant Guard is also "in cover" from any of the normal cover procedures.

I follow the logic, but I think there's a argument about not being able to pick out non-MC in retinues.

i.e. I think Tyrant Guard will be granted an 'always' exception.

You may be confusing the note in the Independent Character section about ICs that are monsterous creatures can always be picked out unless they have a special rule. However Hive Tyrants are not Independent Characters and thus that rule wouldn't apply. Plus they have an exception to this via sheildwall rule even if it did apply.

Tyrant with guard are a unit.

If the majority of the models in the target unit are in cover from the majority of the firers then the whole unit counts as being in cover.

So a Tyrant/Tyrant Guard unit with 2 or more Tyrant guard is going to be able to gain cover from an intervening gaunt unit. But once the unit gets reduced to 1 Tyrant guard, that won't be true anymore.

Ok that makes sense. That the fact that unit as a whole gets a cover save trumps the 50% rule (which in this case is only used to determine how many models in the unit are in cover, not whether the tyrant himself can claim a cover save which was my first thought).

yakface wrote:

Stelek wrote:I follow the logic, but I think there's a argument about not being able to pick out non-MC in retinues.

i.e. I think Tyrant Guard will be granted an 'always' exception.

The "majority" of models have to be in cover for the unit to get a cover save. When you get down to one Tyrant and one Tyrant Guard, the Tyrant Guard will be in cover from intervening Gaunts but the Tyrant (a Monstrous Creature) would not be in cover as 50% of his body is not obscured.

So at that point the whole unit (the Tyrant and 1 Guard) will no longer be in cover unless the Tyrant gets 50% of his body obscured and the Tyrant Guard is also "in cover" from any of the normal cover procedures.

The rules don't read that way to me.

Tyrant gets 'you cannot pick me out' special exception.

So you must shoot his UNIT.

Essentially, the Tyrant is no longer a MC for shooting purposes.

I'm pretty certain this is how the FAQ is going to rule.

Or GW again and yay!

Stelek wrote:

The rules don't read that way to me.

Tyrant gets 'you cannot pick me out' special exception.

So you must shoot his UNIT.

Essentially, the Tyrant is no longer a MC for shooting purposes.

I'm pretty certain this is how the FAQ is going to rule.

Or GW again and yay!

I'm not claiming you can pick him out at all. He is still fully part of the unit, there is absolutely nothing in the rules to suggest that he ceases to follow the basic rules for being a Monstrous Creature.

Of course this *only* matters if there aren't a majority of standard models in the unit.


I'm curious though, why do you think GW should or will FAQ this to give a Tyrant with Tyrant guard even more protection from shooting then it already gets?

I think it's bad gaming for 2 guard to protect and 1 guard not to.

Why have a unit that works at 3 models, 2 models, and then gets into trouble when only 1 model is left.

It's stupid. Bad design. Poor play. Makes for bad feelings.

Should be ditched into the wastebin.

Stelek wrote:I think it's bad gaming for 2 guard to protect and 1 guard not to.

Why have a unit that works at 3 models, 2 models, and then gets into trouble when only 1 model is left.

It's stupid. Bad design. Poor play. Makes for bad feelings.

Should be ditched into the wastebin.

I have to disagree. The Guard still protects the Tyrant by being alive and taking a bullet that the Tyrant would have to take otherwise.

But when it comes down to whether the unit as a whole is in cover or not, it depends on the models as always. When you have 2 Tyrant guard you have a majority of the models in cover because most of the models in the unit are small and would be hard to hit behind some Gaunts and since you can't pick the Tyrant in general out from the Tyrant Guard the whole unit is in cover.

When you're down to one Guard and the Tyrant the majority of the unit is no longer small models so by the rules the unit isn't going to be in cover nearly so easily anymore.

It's a game abstraction that isn't any more strange than a situation where only the Tyrant is visible behind a hill yet the Tyrant Guard are still valid casualties; the rules generally represent whether a unit is in cover or not and more than half of the models have to be in cover for the unit to be considered as such.

I'm saying it is a special case, and for gamesake it should be SIMPLIFIED so as long as ONE guard is alive--the Tyrant isn't a MC.

That's not a game abstraction, it's a bad rule.

A Canoness doesn't become a IC when she's down to one Celestian alive in her retinue.

It's the same concept--a unit should ALWAYS be a unit, or it should always NOT be a unit.

40k does not need half assed rule flaws.

GW should fix it so there aren't any if at all possible.

This one is easy.

I think you are worried about 1+1 cheese outfits. I'm worried about 2-3+1 not being any use once two tyrant guard are gone and then you have a useless guard running around because the Tyrant got picked off.

STUPID RULE.

Stelek wrote:
I think you are worried about 1+1 cheese outfits. I'm worried about 2-3+1 not being any use once two tyrant guard are gone and then you have a useless guard running around because the Tyrant got picked off.

But the Tyrant can't be picked off leaving the Tyrant Guard. I'm only talking about whether the unit as a whole gets a cover save or not, nothing else.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about too.

I guess picked off the wrong way to say it.

The unit gets picked off because a rule changes their status midgame from 'cover' to 'no cover'.

That's bad IMO.

Agreed Stelek.

Isn't this why they had the "Cover -1" rule or whatever it is called?

If the Guard is in cover, and the Tyrant has _any_ claim at denying 100% line of sight, more than half the unit is in cover, technically - even if the Tyrant cannot claim any of it for rolling.

Or am I missing something again, I don't have my book yet. . .

Actually, in 4th, the Tyrant can be picked out in certain circumstances. If the unit is behind Level 2 terrain, the Guard cannot be seen and the Tyrant can be picked out. Given this answer by GW in the FAQ, why shouldn't that precedence follow over into 5th in regards to cover and even true LOS?

don_mondo wrote:Actually, in 4th, the Tyrant can be picked out in certain circumstances. If the unit is behind Level 2 terrain, the Guard cannot be seen and the Tyrant can be picked out. Given this answer by GW in the FAQ, why shouldn't that precedence follow over into 5th in regards to cover and even true LOS?

So you are saying a stupid ruling should continue?

People didn't play tyrant guard for a reason, ya know.

Don't make me get HBMC in here to explain to you the concept of all units should be equally viable, not just some of them some of the time.

Ok?

After reading Yakface;'s points, I still have to agree with Don_Mondo. Unless they FAQ this point, there is no rule that says that the Unit rule trumps the monstrous creature rule. By RAW, what happens is that the Tyrant is not in cover, but the rest of his unit is - a completely unworkable situation, granted, but the only one allowed by the rules.

Just because a monstrous creature is in a unit does not mean that it is no longer considered a monstrous creature. how about a squad of vehicles? They are a unit, but there are also vehicles, and for cover purposes are treated as vehicles.

If the tyrant guard were all monstrous creatures, then there would be no ambiguity - monstrous creature rules would apply. The same applies here - the monstrous creature remains a monstrous creature for purposes of cover saves. As Don_Mondo points out, that follows what happened previously.

The point: GW, please FAQ this to tell us how this is to be played. Otherwise, as what occurred with Tau and shield drones with the advent of 4th edition, tyrant guard are useless if you try to use cover.

Stelek wrote:
Don't make me get HBMC in here to explain to you the concept of all units should be equally viable, not just some of them some of the time.

Some units really aren't viable. "Should be" is a good term for aspirations, not for the reality of this game. Your point here, Stelek, does nothing to respond to Don_Mondo's point.

I don't suppose after allocating wounds, one could simply say that tyrant guards are in cover, while the tyrant is not, and so the guard gets a cover save and the tyrant is out of luck?

Stelek wrote:Yes, that's what I'm talking about too.

I guess picked off the wrong way to say it.

The unit gets picked off because a rule changes their status midgame from 'cover' to 'no cover'.

That's bad IMO.

Just like when 3 other models with 2 in cover loses the model in cover and therefore loses the cover save. I don't understand the problem.

don_mondo wrote:Actually, in 4th, the Tyrant can be picked out in certain circumstances. If the unit is behind Level 2 terrain, the Guard cannot be seen and the Tyrant can be picked out. Given this answer by GW in the FAQ, why shouldn't that precedence follow over into 5th in regards to cover and even true LOS?

But now the rules state any model, anywhere, in a wounded unit can take that wound. In 4e that was not true, they had to be LOS and Range. Now the wounded model can be out of both.

So carrying it over, would simply be for spite of the Tyranids and the RAW.

The sillyness is covered, mostly. The catch is the "more than" half the unit thing. Which is why I mentioned the -1 rule (or whatever its called), which I read as addressing this issue.
Maybe not.


shrug

Antonin wrote:After reading Yakface;'s points, I still have to agree with Don_Mondo. Unless they FAQ this point, there is no rule that says that the Unit rule trumps the monstrous creature rule. By RAW, what happens is that the Tyrant is not in cover, but the rest of his unit is - a completely unworkable situation, granted, but the only one allowed by the rules.

Just because a monstrous creature is in a unit does not mean that it is no longer considered a monstrous creature. how about a squad of vehicles? They are a unit, but there are also vehicles, and for cover purposes are treated as vehicles.

My understanding is that the tyrant isn't considered in cover, but other parts of the squad is, so the whole squad (including the tyrant) can take cover saves.

For a vehicle squadron, none of the vehicles would count as being in cover, so there would be no cover save.

kirsanth wrote:

The sillyness is covered, mostly. The catch is the "more than" half the unit thing. Which is why I mentioned the -1 rule (or whatever its called), which I read as addressing this issue.
Maybe not.


shrug

That rule wouldn't apply here. The '-1 rule' is used when you can't tell whether a majority of models in the unit are in cover or not (or don't want to waste the time to find that out exactly).

In this case (with 1 Tyrant Guard and the Hive Tyrant) it would be clear: The Tyrant Guard model would gain cover from intervening Gaunts while the Tyrant model would not. Therefore more than half the unit is not in cover and the unit would not get a cover save.

Antonin wrote:After reading Yakface;'s points, I still have to agree with Don_Mondo. Unless they FAQ this point, there is no rule that says that the Unit rule trumps the monstrous creature rule. By RAW, what happens is that the Tyrant is not in cover, but the rest of his unit is - a completely unworkable situation, granted, but the only one allowed by the rules.

That's not an unworkable situation. It's no different than having a unit with some models standing in cover while other models in the unit aren't standing in cover. If more than half the models in the unit are in cover, then the unit gets the cover save. If this isn't the case then the unit doesn't get a cover save.

It is different.

You can say it isn't, but it is different.

The unit is still in cover, but their STATUS changes.

That's stupid.

You should know better than to keep saying it isn't a stupid rule by tossing out justifications.

They don't pass muster.

Stelek wrote:It is different.

You can say it isn't, but it is different.

The unit is still in cover, but their STATUS changes.

That's stupid.

You should know better than to keep saying it isn't a stupid rule by tossing out justifications.

They don't pass muster.

And I disagree. I know you think its stupid, but I do not. Nothing wrong with us having different opinions.


The cover rule is an abstract representation on whether a unit as a whole is in cover or not. When you have multiple regular-sized creatures in a unit (Tyrant Guard), it is easier for the unit as a whole to be screened by intervening models. This feels appropriate to me because the majority of the hits will be going onto those smaller sized creatures.

When it gets down to one Tyrant guard and the Tyrant, you no longer have the majority of smaller-sized models comprising the unit so as an abstract representation it is now harder to get cover for the unit because a full 50% of those hits are going to be hitting the Monstrous creature.

So I personally find the situation completely appropriate, and I hope they do not FAQ the rules to change it.


But I do understand your point of view and I can see why you would feel the way you do. . .I just don't personally agree. I think the RAW in this particular case perfectly represent the situation from the abstract perspective of the cover rule as it applies to a whole unit.

Status changes are a major issue in 5th.

Play some asshat at a store you never play, and see how much you like it.

Skimmer bases, this winner of a rule, there is a list of "duh" rules and it's longer than you think.

You seem fine with having to spend 5 minutes (or 20, depending on the asshat you have to deal with--or if you are being one yourself, of course...we all have those days!) explaining how 3 or 2 guard get a cover save but 1 guard does not. Or he does, but the Tyrant doesn't.

I don't want to spend my time in every game arguing stupid rules that weren't tested properly.

Ok, that weren't FIXED when reported as being an issue.

Do you? This edition is supposed to save 40K from the rules lawyers.

You just rules lawyered my units effectiveness.

As soon as you saw RAW, the friendly game is over and the game begins.

Like I said. Do not play with your friends. Play with strangers.

See how upset you can make them with 5E "RAW" before they quit.

5 minutes? 20? Make sure you tell them they have to have their skimmers glued to their base...and when I put 20" tall wires on my "GW bases" leading up to my Sisters, explain how it's impossible to ever get a cover save from them and how it's legal because it's a conversion.

I'd bring a few friends with you if you try this, btw.

I'd list more, but I really want the 'internawts' to find out for themselves just how unfriendly 5E is for the casual player.

Which is what I am actually talking about.

You seem to be talking about tournaments and think I am, but just to set the record straight--I'm not.

Oh and that SOB army does exist, btw. It was at the Chicago GT 3-4 years ago. Everyone was an "angel".

It was horse and GW shoulda banned it.

Like that ass with the Kroot (and many other armies, now that I think about it...always one or two per GT) flyers that were 20" tall on wires.