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.

Say we have the following situation:


A = firing unit (A1, A2, A3 & A4 are models in unit A)
B = target unit (B1, B2, B3 & B4 are models in unit B)
T = terrain


__B1B3
__B2B4
____
____
TT__
TT__
____

A1A3
A2A4


A3 & A4 can absolutely see unit B with no LOS obstruction whatsoever. A1 & A2 can only see half of unit B (they can only see B3 and B4 and only partially).

Now how would you say cover would work here and why?

1) The target unit gets no cover.

2) The target unit gets 4+ cover.

3) The target unit gets a compromised 5+ cover.

4) The target unit gets cover from A1 & A2's shooting, but no cover from A3 & A4's shooting.


Thanks.

Target unit gets 4+ cover. Over 50% of the target unit is obscured from the firing unit by the terrain.

PanzerLeader wrote:Target unit gets 4+ cover. Over 50% of the target unit is obscured from the firing unit by the terrain.

Actually, only 2 of unit A's models have their views obscured. The other 2 models in unit A can see all 4 models in unit B without any obscurement.

PG 22 says that "if the majority of the firers have a clear shot to the majority of the models in the target unit, the unit receives no save."

2 out of 4 is not a majority. 3 of 4, or 4 out of 4 is.

So, 3 of the 4 models in unit A would have to be able to see 3 of the models in unit B in order for unit B to not receive a coversave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, they get a 4+ cover save.

3) The target unit gets a compromised 5+ cover.

50% of a target unit has to be in cover,so they would get a save.What that save is,is another question.Hard cover ( buildings / rocks ) would be 4+, soft cover ( woods / trees ) would be 5+.

jcd - it IS a majority in the UK, which is where the book is written.

If 50% or more of the target unit is obscured from 50% or more of the firing unit then the unit will get a save; the cover save they get is determined by WHAT is obscuring them.

Its pretty hard to tell honestly from letters on a forum, but A1 and A2 can clearly see B4, and the other As can see the rest of the Bs. So asking me on that little diagram, no cover save

nosferatu1001 wrote:jcd - it IS a majority in the UK, which is where the book is written.

If 50% or more of the target unit is obscured from 50% or more of the firing unit then the unit will get a save; the cover save they get is determined by WHAT is obscuring them.

Yeah? Strange. The oxford dictionary defines majority as "the greater number." Are you saying that majority can mean exactly half? Because in that case, the majority is both in and out of cover if 2/4 of the models are in cover, right?

In this case there are two equal majorities....but the BRB only cares about the ones in cover.

A1 can see 2 out of 4 but in cover
A2 can see 2 out of 4 but in cover
A3 can see the entire unit with no cover
A4 can see the entire unit with no cover

Hence, 2 out of 4 attackers can see more than 50% of the unit with no cover.

Indeed, the problem boils down to whether exactly 50% is a majority, but it is either 1) or 2)

On the other hand, if A3 had a plasma gun (for arguments sake) could I choose to fire only A3's weapon and thus not give a cover save to the unit? Otherwise I would have to fire every weapon in the unit and thus the plasma shots could be saved by cover.

Hence, 2 out 4 cannot see at least half of the unit. Meaning they grant cover.

And yes: if you only shoot the members of the unit who have clear LOS then no cover save is granted

jcd386 wrote:PG 22 says that "if the majority of the firers have a clear shot to the majority of the models in the target unit, the unit receives no save."

2 out of 4 is not a majority. 3 of 4, or 4 out of 4 is.

So, 3 of the 4 models in unit A would have to be able to see 3 of the models in unit B in order for unit B to not receive a coversave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, they get a 4+ cover save.

This. The rulebook is clear on this one.

More than half of the firing models must have a clear view to more than half of the models in the targeted unit. In this diagram, half of the firing models only have a clear view of half of the targeted unit. So a cover save is granted.

Remember that it is the firing models which count, not the entire unit (unless they're all firing). Per p16, before rolling any dice player A could choose to declare that model A1 or A2 was not firing, this negating the cover as now 2/3 of the firing models would have a clear view.

nosferatu1001 wrote:jcd - it IS a majority in the UK, which is where the book is written.

If 50% or more of the target unit is obscured from 50% or more of the firing unit then the unit will get a save; the cover save they get is determined by WHAT is obscuring them.

I've only ever seen majority used as meaning "greater than 50%", despite being English myself. May I ask for a reference for "majority" meaning 50% or greater?

Majority means greater than any other group.

Perhaps he is thinking in terms of politics, where (out of three or more groups) two groups can have a split majority, in that they each have an equal number but more than everyone else does?

Out of only two groups (models in cover/out of cover) a majority by definition is more than half.

I think here it was confusion over the rules - the rules want more than half to be out of cover; 2 out of 4 is not more than half, so there is cover....

Or I was having a brain fart. Equally likely given this week

Well, it does make sense. The rules talk about being in cover, not not being in cover.

they get a 4+ cover save.


unless the cover is otherwise defined, its a 4+ by default.



Fortified buildings typically give a 3+

ruins and area terrain(unless otherwise defined) give a 4+

hedges and bushes give a 5+

The section of the rules we're talking about does give a suggested compromise of bumping the cover save from 4+ down to 5+ if you can't determine whether a majority of the firers have a clear shot.

yeah,

compromise is a good thing.

I find that in friendly games, it is best to just go with rough eyeball measurements. If it looks like half of the unit is in cover, give it to them. This is especially useful for speed and comes in handy when playing with hordes.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:I find that in friendly games, it is best to just go with rough eyeball measurements. If it looks like half of the unit is in cover, give it to them. This is especially useful for speed and comes in handy when playing with hordes.

-cgmckenzie

Also, it's good sportsmanship, especially if it's just a weekend/afternoon bash at the flgs.

Yea i would say that you would take a cover save of 4+ if it really comes down to it, either roll for a 4+/5+ ( i know that isn't what you are looking for though)

Solution: Only shoot with 3 of the models.

Grey Templar wrote:yeah,

compromise is a good thing.

After reading all the rules debates on dakka lately, comments like these are always so refreshing .

I'd say they get cover. How good of cover depends on what the terrain actually is of course.

Enter a raging debate on RAW and RAI. And the definition or RAW, or the implied meaning of majority in England vs America (despide what a British dictionary defines it as...)

Roll off. Who cares who is right, game on already.

Priesmal wrote:Enter a raging debate on RAW and RAI. And the definition or RAW, or the implied meaning of majority in England vs America (despide what a British dictionary defines it as...)

Roll off. Who cares who is right, game on already.

Well, feel free to do that. For TOs and anyone who has argumentative opponents, that's the whole point of YMDK. But, if we've established that it is literally Eng vs USA, then we'll just have to have each to his own.