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.

For a vehicle to be able to claim a cover save, it must be 25% obscured.
Unfortunatly the rulebook isn't clear on 25% of what. Is this 25% of the surface area of a facing, or is 25% of the models height (or width) sufficient?

Here's an example:

Here we have a WarWalker stood behind an ADL.
For this example lets say 40% of the vehicles height is obscured behind the wall.
But those spindly legs don't make up much of the model, so only 20% of the walkers total surface area is obscured.

So if it's 25% across any demension then a cover would be granted in this case.
If it's 25% total surface area, no cover save.
The rulebook simple says 25% obscured. What's the communities thoughts?

Total volume of the model(facing for vehicles, see page 74; and 75 picture 3).

it does not state that you get saves for 25% of it's height, you need 25% of the model(again page 74 specifies 25% of facing).

There really should be no question on this and since the model you are showing is a vehicle; there is absolutely no uncertain terms of it not being in cover.

25% is exactly what it sounds like, sadly in this case it kinda gimps the walker but there are better things eldar can do with an ADL anyway.
Like drop it on the home objective and toss in some pathfinders.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Total volume of the model(facing for vehicles, see page 74; and 75 picture 3).

it does not state that you get saves for 25% of it's height, you need 25% of the model(again page 74 specifies 25% of facing).

There really should be no question on this and since the model you are showing is a vehicle; there is absolutely no uncertain terms of it not being in cover.

The pictures on p75 don't help much as they used an unhelpful blue cube for an example.
"25% of the facing" is the term used, no mention of volume or total surface area.

I have no bias on this, my forces (Orks & 'Guard) are box-like and clear cut, but it's come up a couple of times at my FLG.

I'm going with the camp that says 25% volume.

Which also means that if that same walker is standing in a ruin with a hole at the bottom that shows the legs, then maybe a dreadnought wouldn't be in cover, while this guy is.

Looking at the guy, he's showing all of the part I'd shoot at too.

If the rule books term is 25% of it's facing, then that does not mean volume. That means 25% of dimension.

jbunny wrote:
If the rule books term is 25% of it's facing, then that does not mean volume. That means 25% of dimension.

That's the same thing. Unless you mean that you are placing a large blue box, perfectly square around your model and counting for that.
And if you're doing that then you should take it one step further and say that every space-marine-type model is x by y by z inches, no matter if the model itself is prone, jumping or doing somersaults.

Well, keep in mind 2 things.

1. War Walkers are the exception because almost all other vehicles and models are basically large blue boxes.

2. Modeling your guy prone, jumping, or doing somersaults could be MFA.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Total volume of the model(facing for vehicles, see page 74; and 75 picture 3).

it does not state that you get saves for 25% of it's height, you need 25% of the model(again page 74 specifies 25% of facing).

There really should be no question on this and since the model you are showing is a vehicle; there is absolutely no uncertain terms of it not being in cover.

The pictures on p75 don't help much as they used an unhelpful blue cube for an example.
"25% of the facing" is the term used, no mention of volume or total surface area.

I have no bias on this, my forces (Orks & 'Guard) are box-like and clear cut, but it's come up a couple of times at my FLG.

Picture 3 describes a situation where 100% of the facing the firing models are in(and therefore firing at) is obscured, but 100% of the side facing is visible; this is made easier to describe with the "unhelpful blue cube".

You do not need to specify if you are looking for 25%+ of the whole thing(volume/Surface area); you do need to specify when it is 25%+ of a specific dimension(Height/Width).

I think its the facing. I had this exact same argument with a model trying to shoot at another model on the edge of a roof. of course this depends on how far away from the building you are, the farther away the more of it you can see till you're out of range. Lets say you're at that spot where you're close to the building but cant see their feet anymore. Works easy for a human, not so well for a tyranid gaunt. Because the model is horizontal and if you look at it straight on, you can't see the tail or back of the body, but you can see his whole face, arms, legs, and front of the torso. do I think it gets cover at this point? no. people at my LGS didn't seem to have the same opinion.

25% of what the model who is firing could see if absolutely nothing was in the way.
Unless its other models. They magically cover anything no matter how tall.

RAW, that's probably a roll off or get the TO. If I was shooting at that walker, I'd let it take a cover save.

Proper math term would be 25% total Area, seen as if flat from whatever perspective of the firer. Saying Volume is kind of confusing.

I would definitely agree with that. The rules only say 25% of the facing, that means 25% of what is visible. Which means what I said, a two-dimensional area from a single perspective.

What makes this worse is it's 25% for infantry now too... which isn't really necessary since the old slightly more forgiving system was if any part of the model was blocked it was in cover and I feel the old way is easier to see and speeds things up more (fewer disputes too). Now, the question is if it is overal surface area how high does a barricade need to be to provide cover to the average infantry model?

 Crablezworth wrote:
What makes this worse is it's 25% for infantry now too... which isn't really necessary since the old slightly more forgiving system was if any part of the model was blocked it was in cover and I feel the old way is easier to see and speeds things up more (fewer disputes too). Now, the question is if it is overal surface area how high does a barricade need to be to provide cover to the average infantry model?

Depends what angle you see the model from and how far away from the cover he is.

 Crablezworth wrote:
What makes this worse is it's 25% for infantry now too... which isn't really necessary since the old slightly more forgiving system was if any part of the model was blocked it was in cover and I feel the old way is easier to see and speeds things up more (fewer disputes too). Now, the question is if it is overal surface area how high does a barricade need to be to provide cover to the average infantry model?

Not that high really. An ADL covers most of the model... considering most lists are going to have them now, i don't feel sorry for infantry.

And the rules really got better for vehicles in terms of their cover save. Also for example if you have some trees, and a model with skinny legs, the top of the tree might give it cover while the trunk would be too skinny to cover the legs.

Eldar walkers get cover in trees. THEY ARE ELVES. Don't complain now.

My concern with the adl though is a lot of it obscures a models head, which is important for los and I'm sure if I point it out to my opponent I'll be met with a scowl. Even with the vision slits, its quite common that not all models sheltering behind it will be able to draw line of sight to a target.


I voted for the first option "25% total volume" because that's how I've always played it and it seems in line with what the rulebook is telling me to do. However, I think it would be better for the game if it actually was the second option, mostly just in terms of speed and for the experience to be less divisive. I'm a reasonable guy and more often than not I'll allow my opponent cover if he claims he's in cover but for the times in a game that are very crucial to the outcome, like a hail mary shot on a unit holding an ojbective that could mean the difference between win or loss I'm less likely to be lenient on the cover side of things. I think they kinda screwed up with the 25%, it's more difficult IMO to ascertain seeing as not all cover cuts horizontally. The second methoud would certainly be easier, figuer out the heigh of the model and divide by 4.

Again, the first option is obviously what the rulebook is telling you to do, I find it odd that 33% of players seeminly don't understand that. I would hape they simply elect to (along with their opponent) play it that way knowing its a deviation from t he core rules.

Going to have to go with the logic of sort of using a rectangle that the dimensions are W x H of the model, if 25% of that box is covered, tis all good in the hood

 grendel083 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Total volume of the model(facing for vehicles, see page 74; and 75 picture 3).

it does not state that you get saves for 25% of it's height, you need 25% of the model(again page 74 specifies 25% of facing).

There really should be no question on this and since the model you are showing is a vehicle; there is absolutely no uncertain terms of it not being in cover.

The pictures on p75 don't help much as they used an unhelpful blue cube for an example.
"25% of the facing" is the term used, no mention of volume or total surface area.

I have no bias on this, my forces (Orks & 'Guard) are box-like and clear cut, but it's come up a couple of times at my FLG.

Wouldn't the legs be considered part of the front facing anyways? I mean if you could 'only' see that model (or a dreadnought) from the waste down you could legally still fire at it's 'front' facing right? (Or iit's back facing if it is the back of its legs)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jbunny wrote:
Well, keep in mind 2 things.

1. War Walkers are the exception because almost all other vehicles and models are basically large blue boxes.

2. Modeling your guy prone, jumping, or doing somersaults could be MFA.

There are some tau models that come prone and cannot see over an Aegis defense line (or most other terrain) because of this my group has always used caution with determining LoS to and from said models, a little common sense (and fair gameplay) can go a long way with models like that.

 Jstncloud wrote:
Wouldn't the legs be considered part of the front facing anyways? I mean if you could 'only' see that model (or a dreadnought) from the waste down you could legally still fire at it's 'front' facing right? (Or iit's back facing if it is the back of its legs)

Yes the legs are part of the front facing.
The example given is with the legs obscured. They make up only 20% of the surface area of the front facing, or 40% of height.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:
Wouldn't the legs be considered part of the front facing anyways? I mean if you could 'only' see that model (or a dreadnought) from the waste down you could legally still fire at it's 'front' facing right? (Or iit's back facing if it is the back of its legs)

Yes the legs are part of the front facing.
The example given is with the legs obscured. They make up only 20% of the surface area of the front facing, or 40% of height.

Seems like you'd just do 40% of the height, if it is not intended to be this way then models in action poses, lets say Death Company, may be denied cover because one of their legs is up in the air (running) whilst a normal tactical has both planted, seems like the intent is to be able to model for cool appearance without having to worry about something as trivial as this, just my thoughts though. I guess it'd be up to each gaming group to decide unless GW clarifies one way or another.

Volume is a three dimensional measurement, which would be like saying '25% of weight or 25% of mass.

25% of surface is the correct terminology to refer to what appears to be skinny legs vs thick body when viewed from the models perspective.

You're quite right, surface area is what I meant in the original post (which I've edited for clarity).

This came up with a Mawloc once at my FLGS since MC suffer from the same thing your walker does. The model has a base, for the sake of cover I would assume that it takes up all the area contained within the base, and from the table to its height. Effectively 25% of the model's height.

It may not be RAW (not that RAW is very clear in this case), but I think it is more fair, and doesn't screw people over how their model happens to be shaped.

To all that are pretending it is a rectangle, I ask you this:

Can you legally draw line of sight to each part of that rectangle?

The answer is no. By creating this retangle that you use to determine area, you are ignoring a key part about shooting - shoot what you can see. The space between the legs is not part of the war walker, and as such does not make up any part of the surface area. Ask any 6 year old to point at the model in the picture, and they won't point at the empty white space.

That and if you try to claim cover as a cylinder (because that's what a rectangle on a circle base us) than i'm gonna claim LoS to your models the same way.

It would be kinda nice for GW to set something in stone on their cover system.

To specifically say its either total volume or actual surface area.

A cylinder like Warmachine uses would simplify things immensely.

 Geemoney wrote:
This came up with a Mawloc once at my FLGS since MC suffer from the same thing your walker does. The model has a base, for the sake of cover I would assume that it takes up all the area contained within the base, and from the table to its height. Effectively 25% of the model's height.

It may not be RAW (not that RAW is very clear in this case), but I think it is more fair, and doesn't screw people over how their model happens to be shaped.

That would be the 'magic cylinder' from a previous edition where GW did try to approach models as abstract moving models instead of statues as the rules do now. Yes, it was fair and made sense to those who understood the concept, but most people can't handle that level of abstraction in a competitive game. Hence the comment above about the space between the models' legs.

25% of anything is subjective though, so it will still be called somewhere between 10% and 35% based on how spewed the person's perception is.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It would be kinda nice for GW to set something in stone on their cover system.

To specifically say its either total volume or actual surface area.

A cylinder like Warmachine uses would simplify things immensely.

They did; when they said 25% of the model's body.

For vehicles they went 1 further and explained that 25% of the Facing the shooter is in needs to be obscured.

For the war walker in the photo here: is 25% of it's front facing hidden? No, therefore it has no cover.

For a Wraithlord in that position: is 25% of It's body behind the ADL? No, therefore it has no cover.


Claiming Cylinders and Rectangles, or pretending to be confused about whether they mean 25% of the whole model(as they wrote) or 25% of the Height(straw-grasping) is just flat out trying to find a cheat in the game.

Play the game by the plain rules; stop looking for loop-holes.

 snooggums wrote:

 Geemoney wrote:
This came up with a Mawloc once at my FLGS since MC suffer from the same thing your walker does. The model has a base, for the sake of cover I would assume that it takes up all the area contained within the base, and from the table to its height. Effectively 25% of the model's height.

It may not be RAW (not that RAW is very clear in this case), but I think it is more fair, and doesn't screw people over how their model happens to be shaped.

That would be the 'magic cylinder' from a previous edition where GW did try to approach models as abstract moving models instead of statues as the rules do now. Yes, it was fair and made sense to those who understood the concept, but most people can't handle that level of abstraction in a competitive game. Hence the comment above about the space between the models' legs.

25% of anything is subjective though, so it will still be called somewhere between 10% and 35% based on how spewed the person's perception is.

Older editions of warhammer made no mention of a 'magic cylinder', only that models occupied the space of their base. Vehicles/Walkers usually didn't have bases (or only recently had introduced them) and everyone would get per-snickety about skimmer bases. There were as many people against the "magic cylinder" as were for it, and everyone had a different interpretation of whether it included the base, just the model and space between their legs, or no space between their legs.

In any event, I'd grant cover to the war walker because well, it doesn't really matter why, I just would.