10223
Post by: Tyron
Hi all,
Played a game Friday and I was shooting my smart missiles at an IG command squad who were hiding behind a tank and we had a debate on cover saves.
I informed him the only way to get a cover save is if you’re a) inside area terrain or the base is touching it, b) firing through units. Seeing as the SMS doesn’t need LOS to shoot at targets this negates a and b and therefore he doesn’t receive a cover save.
However, when reading the rules for SMS quote ”The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer.”.
The section in bold is where the argument lays. He literally takes it as “If there is blocking terrain between the SMS and the unit (such as his tank) then he gets a cover save as it lies between the SMS and unit.
Lies – dictionary.com;
–verb (used without object)
1. to be in a horizontal, recumbent, or prostrate position, as on a bed or the ground; recline.
2. (of objects) to rest in a horizontal or flat position: The book lies on the table.
To me this indicates if the SMS is horizontal (broadly stated) as it is most of the time not vertical to units indicating the SMS would be on ground level when firing.
I didn’t want to argue anymore with him on the subject but I know he is wrong with this as I have read many forums confirming my opinion right.
How would it best be to explain to him he doesn’t get a cover save? (If all fails show him this thread).
Many thanks!
PS
I have drawn a picture to illustrate the dilemma.
1
3872
Post by: paidinfull
I'm virtually certain how you can gain a cover save VS SMS is covered in C:Tau Empire under the SMS section.
However, in 5th, as far as I'm aware, not requiring LOS does not necessarily mean the shots are barrage.
18433
Post by: TheTrueMata
Seems pretty cut and dry to me, you gain the benefit of not having to 'see' your target, but you may still target them and fire your missiles, however, they maintain the benefit of cover (your missiles could accidentally ricochet off the rhinos armor, or whatever 'fluffy' explanation you prefer).
Seems like the game was played correctly.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
10223
Post by: Tyron
But you only gain cover if you're in it or touching it and he wasn't. His entire premis is the ies between them and the firer bit.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Ok, First of all, @Tyron, you are in Breach of Rule #6 of YMTC. You do not need to bring Dictionary Quotes into this.
Secondly, the SMS says they can benefit from cover if they are in, touching or if it lies between.
A Rhino is not cover, so the Guardsmen will not get the Cover Save. A Wrecked Rhino is however, so they would if it was a Wrecked Rhino.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
*Disclaimer: This is a "How I Would Play It" posting. *
"The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching..."
The target must be in or touching an item that provides a cover save of some sort. Vehicle, wreck, crater, ruins, etc. all qualify.
"... if it lies between them and the firer".
Another qualifier. Obviously if they are in area terrain it will always be between them and the firer. Non-area terrain is where the "lies between them and the firer" comes in. If the target is in contact with a sandbag wall but it's behind them from the perspective of the incoming fire, it won't provide a save.
From your diagram he's not touching, but he's awfully close. If this was a FLGS game night type scenario I'd let it slide. When it's clear the intent of the player is to hug a piece of terrain and gain cover from it we have to make allowances for the fact that the sometimes models are dynamically posed and can't touch bases because of arms, guns, etc.
If it was a tournament and all stops are pulled RAW if he's not TOUCHING you are right. How I Would Play It is unless it was a game breaker I'd let them get the save if it was obvious they were trying for cover saves (which it appears they were).
6150
Post by: Regwon
Tyron wrote:But you only gain cover if you're in it or touching it and he wasn't. His entire premis is the ies between them and the firer bit.
Nowhere in the rules for the SMS does it contradict the rules in the BGB for cover. In 5th because of true line of sight, if the enemy models are obscured by a piece of terrain they are able to take the relevant cover save. A SMS allows you to fire at models that are not in your LOS. However, if the models are obscured by a terrain feature they are still able to take the save. The line you have quoted does not say that the target can ONLY count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer. This line is a throwback to a previous edition when if you were in a certain distance of area terrain you could not see a target, and it has little application now since the rules have changed. To sum up, your opponent was correct.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
Regwon wrote:
The line you have quoted does not say that the target can ONLY count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer.
That's exactly what it does say.
There are two ways to get cover saves from SMS.
a) be in area terrain
b) be touching a piece of terrain between you unit and the SMS
This line is a throwback to a previous edition when if you were in a certain distance of area terrain you could not see a target, and it has little application now since the rules have changed.
I don't see the relationship there at all. If you were deep in area terrain you would always get the cover save so no clarification is needed for that.
15122
Post by: s2ua7
Regwon is right here about the opponent being in cover and TLOS. On page 21 of the rule book it classifies cover as "...anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incomming shots." On the same page it goes on to describe when models are in cover by stating that they are in cover "when any part of the target model's body is obscured from the point of vies of the firer, the model is in cover."
So because his unit is behind the rhino (I'm assuming it was actually a chimera as you said he was playing IG), and was either partially obscured or fully obscured as you did not have to have LOS, it is in cover as per rules from the BRB and does not have to be touching cover. Automatically Appended Next Post: Arschbombe wrote:Regwon wrote:
The line you have quoted does not say that the target can ONLY count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer.
That's exactly what it does say.
There are two ways to get cover saves from SMS.
a) be in area terrain
b) be touching a piece of terrain between you unit and the SMS
This line is a throwback to a previous edition when if you were in a certain distance of area terrain you could not see a target, and it has little application now since the rules have changed.
I don't see the relationship there at all. If you were deep in area terrain you would always get the cover save so no clarification is needed for that.
Ahhh... I now see what the problem is here and dont know if it will be resolved as it can be argued both ways I guess. Nowhere in the rule for SMS does it state that they have to be in terrain to be in cover, although I guess it could be argued that in spirit it suggests that it must be area terrain. The other argument could be that the rulebook states that a figure is IN COVER (satisfying the "cover they are in" exception)... Interesting... I'm not really sure now
6150
Post by: Regwon
Arschbombe wrote:Regwon wrote:
The line you have quoted does not say that the target can ONLY count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer.
That's exactly what it does say. There are two ways to get cover saves from SMS. a) be in area terrain b) be touching a piece of terrain between you unit and the SMS
The line does not say only and by RaW the word only cannot be inferred. If the line did say only they you would be correct, but it doesnt. There are also no other rules in the SMS entry that contradict the core rules in the BGB that state: BGB, p21, When are models in Cover? wrote: When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 61) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover.
10223
Post by: Tyron
Didn't know about the dictionary thing sorry.
The Green Git - That's how I would play it too, but his models where not touching any area terrain or the chimera.
Regwon is wrong on this though because his premis is the chimera between the SMS and the command squad blocks line of sight. However the SMS voids TLOS as it doesn't need it and in the description the SMS moves around objects.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
Regwon wrote:
The line does not say only and by RaW the word only cannot be inferred. If the line did say only they you would be correct, but it doesnt.
I don't see that it needs to include the word only. The SMS rule tells you the two conditions by which target units can get cover benefits from SMS.
There are also no other rules in the SMS entry that contradict the core rules in the BGB that state:
BGB, p21, When are models in Cover? wrote:
When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 61) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover.
The cover rules all hinge on LOS from the firer. SMS does not use/need LOS so any cover gained by restricted/obscured/blocked LOS does not apply.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
SMS does not need LOS - so it can choose the unit as a target. End of bonus.
That has zero bearing on cover saves, as SMS is not barrage.
The unit should get cover.
Note: As was mentioned, if the word "only" or "barrage" was included in the rulebook instead of the asserted text, I daresay this would change things.
16865
Post by: Nightwatch
Using your own tanks as cover(in the rhino situation) is stupid and pointless in real life because they are another thing for the enemy to shoot at, just as your own men don't like being used as a meat shield. To represent this, the rules were formulated to not include vehicles as being classified as cover, and therefore the SMS just spirals behind the tank, blows up the marines, and the devilfish goes back to the hangar. 
5873
Post by: kirsanth
No one cares what happens in real life since we are discussing 40k rules. And they do grant cover in this case.
16865
Post by: Nightwatch
I know, I was remarking how vehicles aren't classified as cover, and it might be because of the reflective real life situation. Don't blow your top, I'm just trying to help If I'm not, my apologies. I'll back away from the thread, before I do any real damage...
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
One option in this case is to attack the vehicle with the SMS and hope it explodes. Those bubbas wouldn't get cover from that.
back on topic: Codex trumps rulebook and the codex rules identify the two conditions by which units can get cover from SMS. Being behind a transport, but not touching it doesn't meet the criteria. So no cover save.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Codex does not even disagree with the main rules, let alone trump them.
10223
Post by: Tyron
Page 27 BRB "the target can count the benefits of the cover they are in, or are touching it if it lies between them and the firer."
The rules for SMS are as follows; The smart missile system fires self-guiding missiles with the intelligence of a drone, which first search for then hunt down the target, passing around any blocking terrain.
The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer."
In the example given if the unit were in cover, touching it or touching the tank then sure they would get a cover save, they would also get a cover save if they were touching it and i could see some of the unit.
However we can follow this simple step by step list.
Was the unit in cover? = Nope
Was the unit partialy in cover? = Nope
Was the unit being obscured or blocked line of sight to the SMS? = Nope as the SMS doesn't need line of sight.
In conclusion they would not get a cover save, yes?
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
The codex identifies the two conditions that allow cover saves from SMS. It doesn't say that SMS can fire without LOS and then determine cover saves normally.
10223
Post by: Tyron
Arschbombe wrote:The codex identifies the two conditions that allow cover saves from SMS. It doesn't say that SMS can fire without LOS and then determine cover saves normally.
The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Not needing LOS means the unit can be targeted without LOS. That is all. It does not affect cover saves. Still.
10223
Post by: Tyron
But the argument is if the tank would give them a cover save as it obscures the LOS for the SMS. If it were any other tank it would not be able to see behind the chimera and thus not shoot at the command squad.
However with SMS I don't need to see, the tank doesn't block line of sight as I shoot around it and as they're out in the open, not in or touching cover or the tank they get no save.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
You are incorrect. The tank does block line of sight.
Line of Sight, however, is not needed for targeting, as the SMS can engage models without it.
No mention is made of ignoring cover because of LOS. Another cover save option is given, so if anything more cover saves than normal are allowed from SMS.
10223
Post by: Tyron
You are incorrect. The tank does block line of sight.
That doesn't even make sense.
How can the tank block LOS if the SMS doesn't need it? It doesn't.
Line of Sight, however, is not needed for targeting, as the SMS can engage models without it.
You have just contradicted yourself and voiding your first statment.
No mention is made of ignoring cover because of LOS. Another cover save option is given, so if anything more cover saves than normal are allowed from SMS.
Can you show me in the rulebook where it says this?
I have pointed out the only way he would get a cover save. I would like you to do the same please.
19413
Post by: ajfirecracker
Also, LOS!=Cover. They're similar but not the same. A rule that references does not automatically reference the other. The same can be said of the process for determining each.
10223
Post by: Tyron
ajfirecracker wrote:Also, LOS!=Cover. They're similar but not the same. A rule that references does not automatically reference the other. The same can be said of the process for determining each.
Whaaaat??? 
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Read page 15 of the main rules. And in fact the whole shooting section. Then re-read this thread.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
So by your reading a unit out of LOS will always get a save from SMS?
10223
Post by: Tyron
How about you quote me on where I am wrong with the BRB kirsanth?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Arschbombe wrote:So by your reading a unit out of LOS will always get a save from SMS?
Unless it is barrage, or has another rule that lets it ignore COVER, yes.
As for rules?
Let's start general then and see.
pg 15 has the summation.
1. Check line of sight & pick a target. ("All models in the unit that can see at least one enemy model in the target unit may open fire." - This is the part SMS gets around)
2. Check range. (No issue.)
3. Roll to hit. (No issue.)
4. Roll to wound. (No issue.)
5. Take saving throws. (Saving throws usually derive. . . from being in cover. - edited for the only part we care about)
6. Remove casualties. (No issue.)
First off, SMS mentions only step 1.
Next page 21.
"When are models in Cover?"
When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view[NOTE: Not LOS] of the firer, the target model is in cover."
Should I nitpick more, or can you read the whole thing now?
19413
Post by: ajfirecracker
Yes, in case you're wondering, the SMS does suck per RaW. It can fire at non-LOS targets, but kirsanth is correct in pointing out that they get cover saves.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
Seems pretty obvious to me that you get a cover save. There is so much emphasis on the "if they are touching" line, but it's pretty obvious just by the sentence before it:
"The target can count the benefits of cover they are in"
10223
Post by: Tyron
kirsanth they would be obscured from the devilfish if they were shooting straight using LOS, and going by that statement the SMS wouldn't be able to shoot them.
I would agree with you about them being obscured if I were firing with LOS, the SMS doesn't need line of sight so it can never be obscured as the drones can see them above/around the tank.
19413
Post by: ajfirecracker
Cover uses the view of the model (along with other factors, like area terrain and wargear).
LOS uses the view of the model.
The similarities end there. The fact that you're not using LOS has no bearing on cover unless otherwise specified (as in barrage rules).
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Tyron wrote: if they were shooting straight using LOS, and going by that statement the SMS wouldn't be able to shoot them.
The first part "If they were shooting straight" is 100% fluff.
The second . . . SMS would indeed not be able to shoot them, if it did not have a rule saying LOS was not needed to engage.
10223
Post by: Tyron
Exaclty so it is impossible for the SMS to have obscured targets. The section you referenced is for the purposes of units who need to shoot using LOS.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
No, it was all the rules for shooting.
Really, I am not allowed, nor inclined to reprint the whole section. Read it.
10223
Post by: Tyron
I have done and it is refereing to LOS as it states the unit would be obscured. But how can that be if it doesn't need LOS?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
kirsanth wrote:
"When are models in Cover?"
When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view[NOTE: Not LOS] of the firer, the target model is in cover."
Again note, this still does not refer to LOS.
And still, if the SMS said, "only", "instead", "barrage", or even something like "this ignores cover saves" like many weapons do, you would have a point. Until then, I will wait until simply repeating myself does not answer your question.
6150
Post by: Regwon
Arschbombe wrote:So by your reading a unit out of LOS will always get a save from SMS?
Yes Tyron wrote:Exaclty so it is impossible for the SMS to have obscured targets. The section you referenced is for the purposes of units who need to shoot using LOS.
This is not true. Being able to target a unit without LOS (normally you need LOS to at least one model) does not mean that they are not obscured. You are confusing the rules for targeting with the rules for shooting. Normally a unit may not target a unit that is out of LOS. However, a SMS may target a unit that is out of LOS. Seperately, A unit that is out of LOS is obscured from the firer (p21 of the BGB) and so is granted a cover save. This is new in 5th edition. Previously you had to actually be standing in or touching area terrain to gain a cover save, but now rules have been introduced that mean that if your target obscured (either partially of fully) from you it is granted a cover save.
10223
Post by: Tyron
kirsanth, that reference is asigned for units who need to use LOS to clarify who get's cover, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
It doesn't need "only", "instead", "barrage", or even something like "this ignores cover saves". It clearly states it doesn't need LOS as the missiles go around any objects in the way.
I think you're getting a little confused and think I believe units in area terrain shouldn't get a cover save. I believe they do, I also believe units out in the open behind a tank but NOT touching it should not get a cover save, if they were touching the tank by all means take your save.
"Previously you had to actually be standing in or touching area terrain to gain a cover save"
This still applies in 5th.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
kirsanth wrote:
Next page 21.
"When are models in Cover?"
When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view[NOTE: Not LOS] of the firer, the target model is in cover."
Ok, I see your point now and how you came to your conclusion.
Should I nitpick more, or can you read the whole thing now?
Please do. It suits you.
Night Lords wrote:There is so much emphasis on the "if they are touching" line, but it's pretty obvious just by the sentence before it:
"The target can count the benefits of cover they are in"
This plus Kirsanth's quotes brought the disagreement into focus for me. When I read the rule from the Tau codex the wording "cover they are in or touching" is what led me to my interpretation. Because you can't touch the obscuration that the main rules refer to, I read that line as " physical cover they are in or touching."
19413
Post by: ajfirecracker
LOS!=Cover. Therefore ignore LOS!= ignore Cover.
No, in 5th edition I do not have to stand in area terrain to get a cover save. I can stand behind a unit (friendly or enemy) and gain a cover save.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Arschbombe wrote:Please do. It suits you.
Thank you, I do it for a living.
I am pretty sure that it has been covered in this case, however.
11667
Post by: CatPeeler
Tyron wrote:It doesn't need "only", "instead", "barrage", or even something like "this ignores cover saves".
Agreed. The codex clearly identifies the two specific instances where cover applies (i.e., target in area terrain, target touching other object that would provide cover).
Are there more ways in the BRB to acquire a cover save? Certainly--but remember, Codex trumps BRB. In this case, the definition of 'what provides cover' is limited to the specific circumstances outlined in the SMS entry in the Codex, rather than the broader guidelines in the BRB. In effect, the codex ignores the normal procedures for determining cover and substitutes them with a much narrower definition.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
We really need a facepalm ork.
Still.
I am baffled that has not been covered.
(The facepalm ork, because CatPeeler's comment was.)
15853
Post by: Night Lords
CatPeeler wrote:Tyron wrote:It doesn't need "only", "instead", "barrage", or even something like "this ignores cover saves".
Agreed. The codex clearly identifies the two specific instances where cover applies (i.e., target in area terrain, target touching other object that would provide cover).
.
It does not say area terrain. It says:
"The target can count the benefits of cover they are in"
A unit behind a vehicle is in cover. They benefit from the save.
11667
Post by: CatPeeler
Am I correct in understanding that your dismissal is based on your claim that the model's view is somehow different from the model's LOS?
How is the model's view determined? By looking at the target from the model's point of view.
How is TLOS determined? By looking at the target from the model's point of view.
Given that these are identical, it's quite a stretch to infer that the SMS entry's mention of being "in cover" refers to anything other than area terrain.
10223
Post by: Tyron
"A unit behind a vehicle is in cover. They benefit from the save. "
Only if it is obscured from the the TLOS of the firer which it isn't as the SMS doesn't need LOS so it can't be obscured.
Was your plast post aimed at me CatPeeler
19413
Post by: ajfirecracker
The SMS does not need TLOS to fire. You still check it, per the rules. And you still use TLOS to determine cover.
P. 23, the figure with all the orks. Groups B and E clearly indicate that they are "in cover" (or could be) because the view is obscured. I believe that this means Night Lord is entirely correct about the way the rules play out.
10223
Post by: Tyron
The problem with your example is all units in that picture require TLOS to shoot their targets, the SMS doesn't and therefore no unit can be obscured and wouldnt get a save.
If they were hugging the rear of the truk then they would get a save no question (represents them hiding under the truk ect).
5873
Post by: kirsanth
OK guys.
LOS is used to determine whether or not a unit can fire at a given target. Period. Full stop.
End of story.
Ignoring LOS does not in any way or fashion ignore Cover Saves.
LOS is only checked for determining which models can be engaged in the shooting phase.
Also from cover saves:
"units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw."
"Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots."
The SMS states "The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not". It does not "ignore LOS"
.
Note: The guys behind the vehicle are a hidden target.
Note: Those same guys can be shot with SMS as LOS is not needed to choose them as a target.
Note: SMS does not mention it ignores cover, in fact it mentions additional ways to gain cover.
Note: It does not matter at all the "reason" the weapon ignores LOS, simply ignore whether LOS exists, because the rules say to.
Note: The rules still do not say to ignore the part where you determine cover.
edited for redundancy
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
Catpeeler and Tyron,
I think you're right on the RAI, but Kirsanth and the others have the right of it on RAW as it stands today. The reasoning goes like this:
SMS Rule: "The target can count the benefits of cover they are in" Ignore for the moment the next phrase "or are touching..."
Page 21 of the BRB:
"When are models in Cover?"
When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."
So by RAW any obscured unit is in cover for the purposes of the SMS rule. I think you're reading the SMS rule the way I was because of the second phrase " or are touching if the cover lies between..." You think that the cover in the first part of the rule (cover you are in) must be the same kind of cover in the second part of the rule (cover you can touch). I agree this is the RAI, but it is not the RAW.
6150
Post by: Regwon
kirsanth wrote:OK guys.
LOS is used to determine whether or not a unit can fire at a given target. Period. Full stop.
End of story.
Ignoring LOS does not in any way or fashion ignore Cover Saves.
LOS is only checked for determining which models can be engaged in the shooting phase.
Also from cover saves:
"units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw."
"Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots."
The SMS states "The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not". It does not "ignore LOS"
.
Note: The guys behind the vehicle are a hidden target.
Note: Those same guys can be shot with SMS as LOS is not needed to choose them as a target.
Note: SMS does not mention it ignores cover, in fact it mentions additional ways to gain cover.
Note: It does not matter at all the "reason" the weapon ignores LOS, simply ignore whether LOS exists, because the rules say to.
Note: The rules still do not say to ignore the part where you determine cover.
edited for redundancy
This is correct. TLOS is used to determine which units can be targeted and which are obscured, and there recieve a cover save.
The rules about targeting are separate from the rules about cover saves dispite the fact that they use the same game system.
So the SMS breaks down into two different stages
--------------
You are able to target a unit with a SMS that is out of your LOS.
--------------
A unit that is out of your LOS is obscured
Units that are obscured gain a cover save
--------------
If you fire the SMS at a unit that is not obscured it is not able to gain a cover save.
11667
Post by: CatPeeler
kirsanth wrote:Note: SMS does not mention it ignores cover, in fact it mentions additional ways to gain cover.
I disagree. It doesn't say, "in addition to the normal cover rules..." It simply says units may utilize cover in these two ways. Period. Full stop.
------
The point of contention, as I see it, is the way the SMS entry is written: "...the target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching..." In the quote above, I read "cover" as referring to a terrain piece, not an abstraction defined by the rules. Therefore, "cover you are in" is not the same as the state of being "in cover," and I'll try to explain why.
Swap "ruins" for cover, and you'll see what I mean. "...the target can count the benefit of [ruins] they are in, or are touching..." This works just as well with woods/craters/wreckage/etc., or even things like "swimming pool," or "wal-mart." These are all objects, these all mesh neatly with how the sentence is structured.
On the other hand, swap in any rules-defined abstract state of being, (i.e., 'gone to ground that they are in, or are touching", "falling back that they are in, or are touching") and it falls apart. Now let's look at wargear. Pop smoke (or buy a disruption pod, etc), and your vehicle is 'obscured'... but try and swap that into the phrase. "...obscured that you are in, or are touching...."
In short, the phrasing in the SMS entry is structured such that "cover" can only be treated as a tangible, physical object. The only cover related objects in the game are area terrain (woods, ruins, etc) and linear terrain (walls, barricades, etc). It's no coincidence that those are also the two specific ways that the SMS allows a cover save.
This isn't just RAI, it's RAW-- because of how the sentence was written. If the SMS entry said, "The target can count the benefits of being 'in cover,' and may also be considered 'in cover' if they are touching a terrain piece which lies between them and the firer," your argument would be entirely valid. Because the sentence was structured as it was, however, "cover" can only refer to an object, not a state of being.
19413
Post by: ajfirecracker
Every rule is in addition to the normal rules unless it specifies that it replaces normal rules.
11667
Post by: CatPeeler
ajfirecracker wrote:Every rule is in addition to the normal rules unless it specifies that it replaces normal rules.
Not really. If that were so, the same wargear/vehicles/equipment would work the same way for every army that share them (smoke launchers, machine spirit, chimera fire points, force weapons, etc).
19413
Post by: ajfirecracker
Actually, CatPeeler, those rules do override the regular rules via Specific>General.
The SMS does not contradict the rules for normal cover. And even if it did, the wording does not limit what cover saves may be taken, it grants the unit cover saves.
And even if it did limit the saves that may be taken, 5e uses the term "in cover" to denote a unit that gets cover due to intervening models or terrain, so the unit would still get cover from the SMS rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the only one of those that has general rules is force weapons, and there the GK ones are different only because they're more specific. I believe Smokes say to use codex rules in case of a conflict.
10223
Post by: Tyron
"A unit that is out of your LOS is obscured
Units that are obscured gain a cover save"
For them to be obscured I would need TLOS, SMS doesn't need it so it's impossible to be obscured.
Again, how can a target I physically can't see be obscured? They would be hidden instead, luckily my SMS doesn't need TLOS and allows me to fire at a unit as if I could see them clearly, even says in the SMS description.
19413
Post by: ajfirecracker
No, Tyron. All that not needing TLOS does is mean that you can choose to target that unit when you would normally be unable to.
That's it.
10223
Post by: Tyron
Exactly, so I don't need TLOS and you can only be obscured when using TLOS to see from the firer if the target is partially hidden, which I don't need to do.
19413
Post by: ajfirecracker
Whether or not you use TLOS is COMPLETELY unrelated to how cover is determined. Is that clear enough?
Can you still manage to misinterpret my point?
10223
Post by: Tyron
ajfirecracker, a cover save is dependant on the TLOS of the firer yes?
That is how cover is determined.
How can you not understand that?
11667
Post by: CatPeeler
ajfirecracker wrote:Actually, CatPeeler, those rules do override the regular rules via Specific>General.
Specific >General would also apply to cover saves granted by SMS vs cover saves granted in general, wouldn't you say? Are they not specific vs general?
The SMS does not contradict the rules for normal cover. And even if it did, the wording does not limit what cover saves may be taken, it grants the unit cover saves.
Ah, but the wording does do exactly that. Grammatically, it's a clear case of object vs concept, in the same way that "meal" does not equal "hungry."
And even if it did limit the saves that may be taken, 5e uses the term 'in cover' to denote a unit that gets cover due to intervening models or terrain, so the unit would still get cover from the SMS rules.
Not exactly. The rules utilize "in cover" to denote the status of a unit which receives a cover save due to any of several causes. Again, object vs abstraction. Also, the SMS entry is very specific in defining two ways in which a unit can benefit from cover vs SMS. Because it does not say, "in addition to the normal rules for cover," we must assume that these are the only ways in which a target unit may utilize a cover save.
Also, the only one of those that has general rules is force weapons, and there the GK ones are different only because they're more specific.
Actually, they differ because the names aren't exactly identical. By the same token, "the cover you are in" is not exactly the same as "in cover."
19413
Post by: ajfirecracker
A cover save is dependent on the point of view of the firer, not LOS.
Point of view determines both, but ignoring one does not let you ignore both.
CatPeeler is wrong. I'm not going to argue beyond that. I've stated my points and there's no reason to elaborate.
10223
Post by: Tyron
You keep forgetting that you still need to see the target to shoot at it (LOS) otherwise you wouldn't be able to hit them.
Depending on when seeing them if they're obscured you they get a cover save or not.
I don't understand why you leave out LOS when it is needed to determine if you can shoot at a unit.
6150
Post by: Regwon
Tyron wrote:You keep forgetting that you still need to see the target to shoot at it (LOS) otherwise you wouldn't be able to hit them.
Depending on when seeing them if they're obscured you they get a cover save or not.
I don't understand why you leave out LOS when it is needed to determine if you can shoot at a unit.
You're getting confused between the rules for targeting and the rules for cover. They are separate sets of rules that use the same game mechanic.
When you are shooting you normally require LOS to a model to trarget it. SMS allow you to target a model that is out of your LOS. They dont allow you to ignore LOS completely. They dont allow you to ignore cover saves. The only thing that a SMS allows you to do is target a unit that you cant see.
When checking to see if a unit can gain a cover save you check LOS from the model. Cover saves have nothing to do with targeting so the fact that a SMS is allowed to target a unit outside of its own LOS is irrelevant. All you do is check LOS to see if a unit is obscured. If it is it can gain a cover save regardless of how it was targeted.
This really isnt hard and we cant make it any easier for you to understand.
19413
Post by: ajfirecracker
Tyron wrote:You keep forgetting that you still need to see the target to shoot at it (LOS) otherwise you wouldn't be able to hit them.
Depending on when seeing them if they're obscured you they get a cover save or not.
I don't understand why you leave out LOS when it is needed to determine if you can shoot at a unit.
Alright, now you're being a troll. The whole point of your argument is that you ignore LOS because the SMS says you don't need it. I make a post arguing the rules (including how LOS applies) and you jump on that as saying I'm ignoring LOS? That's ridiculous.
Yes, LOS matters. Yes, SMS lets you shoot despite not having LOS. No, SMS does not let you ignore models being in cover due to any particular cause.
18130
Post by: ShawnSum
Tyron, stop. You are killing the RAW with your RAI.
Just because you don't have to actually have TLOS to shoot at your target does not automatically count the unit as "not being obscured".
They unit is obscured, they are completely hidden behind the flipping tank.
People kill me when they do this..
11667
Post by: CatPeeler
ajfirecracker wrote:CatPeeler is wrong. I'm not going to argue beyond that. I've stated my points and there's no reason to elaborate.
Ah, the "Chewbacca Defense." Well played, sir. Well played.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
CatPeeler wrote:ajfirecracker wrote:CatPeeler is wrong. I'm not going to argue beyond that. I've stated my points and there's no reason to elaborate.
Ah, the "Chewbacca Defense." Well played, sir. Well played.
This is what I hate about these forums. He stated the facts, you cant come up with the answer to them (or just repeat the same irrelevant points). Why should he continue? Even though he's done here, he's still right. Otherwise he would be sitting here arguing with you (because you guys can't get it through your heads) for another 4 pages until the topic got locked.
Good for him, he doesnt have to waste time arguing this nonsense.
11667
Post by: CatPeeler
Night Lords wrote:This is what I hate about these forums. He stated the facts, you cant come up with the answer to them (or just repeat the same irrelevant points). Why should he continue? Even though he's done here, he's still right. Otherwise he would be sitting here arguing with you (because you guys can't get it through your heads) for another 4 pages until the topic got locked.
Or alternatively, I posted a fairly lengthy (and entirly new!) argument as to why "cover that they are in" is not the same as "in cover"-- which he didn't address at all--and then he decided to pick up his ball and go home.
Or did you not look at page 2?
15853
Post by: Night Lords
He doesnt address it because youre grasping at straws and it doesnt follow with the rest of the rules, nor does it tell you it breaks any basic rules. Theyve told you ten times now why it doesnt work that way and you keep going.
Youre free to play page 2 however you want, but it doesnt really matter. This is not a conflict of two rules or one where there are two meanings (as cover is defined in the rule book). Its very simple - You do not need LoS, but they are in cover, they get a save.
11667
Post by: CatPeeler
Night Lords wrote:He doesnt address it because youre grasping at straws and it doesnt follow with the rest of the rules, nor does it tell you it breaks any basic rules. Theyve told you ten times now why it doesnt work that way and you keep going.
Youre free to play page 2 however you want, but it doesnt really matter. This is not a conflict of two rules or one where there are two meanings (as cover is defined in the rule book). Its very simple - You do not need LoS, but they are in cover, they get a save.
Again, if the codex stated that "...units which are IN COVER, or are considered IN COVER by touching..." you would be absolutely right. That's not what it says, though. The codex treats "cover" as a physical piece of terrain. The rulebook treats cover as a abstract 'state' that a unit is in.
One is a thing, the other is an idea. I'm not pulling this out of thin air, or grasping at straws--this is how language works, on a pretty fundamental level.
If you can acknowledge that an object and an idea are not the same things, it follows that the codex is different than the brb. Once you have done that, Specific > General.
If you deny that an object is different than an idea, then you are denying how basic grammar functions.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
i think its time the tau got a new codex ; )
the 3rd ed book is outdated and needs revisions!
IMHO, the SMS debate should allow for no cover...
HOWEVER, since 5th/4th ed both changed the rules for shooting, the wording in the SMS has exclusive parameters from shooting guidlines in the brb... and does give cover saves... even though it was not intended :(
15853
Post by: Night Lords
CatPeeler wrote:
Again, if the codex stated that "...units which are IN COVER, or are considered IN COVER by touching..." you would be absolutely right. That's not what it says, though. The codex treats "cover" as a physical piece of terrain. The rulebook treats cover as a abstract 'state' that a unit is in.
You are assuming it means in physical cover. It does not say that. Any reasonable person would say the benefits from the cover they are in means, you know, theyre in cover.
BUT, if you cant acknowledge youre wrong, so be it. Im done with this topic as I really dont care.
You can say Im taking the "chewbacca tactic", but really, it seems its like youre taking the "Jar Jar Binks" method more than anything.
12914
Post by: FoxPhoenix135
Nightwatch wrote:Using your own tanks as cover(in the rhino situation) is stupid and pointless in real life because they are another thing for the enemy to shoot at, just as your own men don't like being used as a meat shield. To represent this, the rules were formulated to not include vehicles as being classified as cover, and therefore the SMS just spirals behind the tank, blows up the marines, and the devilfish goes back to the hangar.
Wrong. Ever been part of a Stryker unit? The infantry uses the cover of the IFV if they start taking fire.
And more to the topic, If you get a cover save for units that block LOS to a target, so how can a rhino not be classified as cover? You can have LOS without cover, how can you say you can't have cover without needing LOS? doesn't make sense to me. *shrug*
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
The crux of the problem is that 5th edition changed the definition of cover. In 4th, when the Tau Codex was written, cover was about physical terrain. Now in 5th, it's about obscuration. This double gimps the SMS since now things that blocked LOS before no longer do (meaning fewer situations where its ability to fire at targets out of LOS has any value) and you pretty much always get a cover save against it where before you did not.
11667
Post by: CatPeeler
Night Lords wrote:You are assuming it means in physical cover. It does not say that. Any reasonable person would say the benefits from the cover they are in means, you know, theyre in cover.
I'm not assuming anything--the way the sentence is structured, it's the only possible interpretation. Look at it this way: if a model is placed within area terrain, that model is in cover. If a model is in cover, however, it may or may not be in area terrain. The difference between "the cover they are in" and "in cover" may seem petty or rediculous, but semantics are a pretty crucial element of RAW. If it was just a matter of comparing cover to cover, it would be a non-issue because the words are obviously identical. When you're comparing phrases, though, little differences can have pretty huge effects.
Again, when I say that "cover they are in, or touching" refers to area terrain (rather than the status of being 'in cover'), it's because--grammatically speaking--that's the only thing it *can* mean. To put it simply, you can't touch a status. If you argue that the slight differences in phrasing don't matter, then you're no longer basing your argument strictly upon what is written, but upon what you think the author really 'means' when he wrote it. That way, my friend, lies RAI.
I'm really not trying to be obstinate or gain an advantage here. Let's be honest--75 or 80% of the time, the target is MEQ or better, in which case the whole issue is entirely moot. If this discussion has been overly frustrating, I apologize. However, the language is what it is. On that point, there really isn't much room for debate.
18659
Post by: rednekgunner
I am not trying to stir the pot, but if you go by the Adepticon FAQ (TAU.27E.02) It says " As the weapon does not require line of sight, they may only claim a cover save if at least half of their models are actually in terrain and/or touching a piece of intervening terrain" Catpeeler would be correct IMO.
I think we all can agree that the FAQ is the best source to date.
15122
Post by: s2ua7
I dont think you are stirring the pot, but according the tenants of posting in YMTC (from a stickied post at the top of this forum):
"The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on."
Thus the Adepticon FAQ has no bearing on this topic as of yet. Thats not to say the FAQ has no bearing on how people play, but for the purposes of YMTC, it does not. I dont play Tau, and as I've stated in my previous post, I am no longer sure, so it is something I would discuss with my buddies before playing...
Edit: Fixed some grammer and post structure
10223
Post by: Tyron
You know the more I read the SMS the more I'm inclined to go with CatPeeler.
I will quote the whole SMS and break it down.
The smart missile system fires self guiding missiles with the intelligence of a drone, which first search for then hunt down the target, passing around any blocking terrain. The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer. (the last bit is irrelevant).
Now let's break this down.
In the description it tells us the target can only get a cover save based on two conditions;
a) Cover they are in
Clearly the command squad were not in cover, if they had been they would receive a cover save, no dispute.
b) Touching if it lies between them and the firer.
They were not in or touching the trees nor were they touching the tank.
Using these two conditions which the SMS only gives to allow the unit to take a cover save are not, they do not receive a cover save and we must ignore the obscured rule in the BRB as the SMS has defined how a target can only get a cover save.
To ignore the very specifics of the SMS rules would be an unfaire one as we would have to ignore each special rule of all things in each Codex. However silly/overpowered/doesn't work the rule is we must accept it until the said army gets a new Codex.
The Adepticon FAQ for obscured targets is a broad ruling as it doesn’t single out the SMS (which has it’s own conditions compared to other units rules for shooting) so I think we can give that a miss here.
6150
Post by: Regwon
Tyron wrote:You know the more I read the SMS the more I'm inclined to go with CatPeeler.
I will quote the whole SMS and break it down.
The smart missile system fires self guiding missiles with the intelligence of a drone, which first search for then hunt down the target, passing around any blocking terrain. The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer. (the last bit is irrelevant).
Now let's break this down.
In the description it tells us the target can only get a cover save based on two conditions;
a) Cover they are in
Clearly the command squad were not in cover, if they had been they would receive a cover save, no dispute.
b) Touching if it lies between them and the firer.
They were not in or touching the trees nor were they touching the tank.
Using these two conditions which the SMS only gives to allow the unit to take a cover save are not, they do not receive a cover save and we must ignore the obscured rule in the BRB as the SMS has defined how a target can only get a cover save.
To ignore the very specifics of the SMS rules would be an unfaire one as we would have to ignore each special rule of all things in each Codex. However silly/overpowered/doesn't work the rule is we must accept it until the said army gets a new Codex.
The Adepticon FAQ for obscured targets is a broad ruling as it doesn’t single out the SMS (which has it’s own conditions compared to other units rules for shooting) so I think we can give that a miss here.
This is how it worked in 4th edition. This is not how it works in 5th edition. In 5th you are in cover if you are obscured from the firer. If the command squad is obscured from the firer then they are in cover. I'll give you the quote again.
BGB, p21, When are models in cover? wrote:
When any part of the target model is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover.
So the command squad are in cover as stated by that rule because they are obscured from the point of view of the SMS (you measure LOS from the individual weapon mounts on a vehicle).
Now the SMS rules do nothing to state that this cover save is ignored or that the models dont count as being obscured. The line about models in or touching cover is meaningless because models count as being in cover when they are obscured, not when they are in a terrain feature. It refers to rules that no longer exist and so cannot be applied.
Also if you infer the word only into the SMS rules then that is your interpretation rather than the rules as they have been written. The game cannot be played if we all interpret the rules differently, and because we dont know the intention of the GW dev team, we can only play the game as it is written in the rules.
10223
Post by: Tyron
"It refers to rules that no longer exist and so cannot be applied."
Tau Codex"The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer."
BRB Page 23Inside area terrain: "Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover regardless of the direction of the shot is coming from. This represents their increased chance of diving into or behind a piece of covering terrain."
This rule clearly stands as it is within the 5th ed rules arguing otherwise is dishonest. Again you get some rules in Codex which are out of date/don’t make sense/silly but they do override the BRB none the less.
The rules for SMS make it very clear how a unit can only get a cover save, you can keep quoting obscured targets all you like, but it doesn’t say in the SMS obscured targets get a cover save (reading from the SMS description on how the weapon works has shown it is impossible for a target to be obscured).
Codex>BRB
If you denounce this then you should not use your armies special rules when you play a game if they contradict the BRB.
11273
Post by: Alerian
Tyron wrote:
Tau Codex"The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer."
The Tau codex does not say if they are in "area terrain", as several of you are suggesting. It talkes about being in cover.
You have been given this quote from the BRB, but let me give it to you again....here are the 5th ed rules for being "in cover":
BGB, p21, When are models in cover? "When any part of the target model is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."
When compared with the wording for SMS, being obsured is being "in cover", and thus cover saves may be taken. There is no conflict between the actual wording of the BRB and the Tau codex. So there is no Codex>BRB issue. The only conflict is with the way cover used to work in 4th, and the way it works now, in 5th.
Face it, the rules for being "in cover" have changed from 4th to 5th. All that matters is that a sqaud is obscured from the view. Unfrotuantely, even though the SMS allow you to target something w/o seeing it, it's wording doesn't get past the rules for 5th ed cover. It is just one of many problems that exists in several codexes, thanks to the change from 4th to 5th.
Be glad that you can stil even use SMS...many codexes lost pieces of wargear/upgrades simply because cannot be used; they now to NOTHING in 5th ed, whatsoever.
10223
Post by: Tyron
And yet the rest of your quote extends to;
"This is intentionally generous, and it represents the fact that the warrior unlike the model, will be actively trying to take cover (as well as the smoke, explosions and flying debris that are mercifully absent from our tabletop battlefields)."
As established they were too far from physical cover for them to dive behind (actively trying to take cover) and there were no smoke, explosions and flying debris near that area as I was only firing my SMS there and the rest of the army shot at his on the other side of the board.
The wording of the SMS is very clearly implying physical cover as again, due to the mechanics of SMS nothing can be obscured, but I do understand where you’re coming from.
11273
Post by: Alerian
Tyron wrote:
The wording of the SMS is very clearly implying physical cover as again, due to the mechanics of SMS nothing can be obscured, but I do understand where you’re coming from.
Yes, it IMPLIES physical cover, as that was the only kind of cover available when the codex was written.
It never STATES physical cover is the only way to get cover saves from SMS. The rules only care about what is written...never about what is implied.
In 5th, cover can be found from obsurement and smoke (as you pointed out). Neither of these are physical cover, yet they grant models the benefit of being "in cover". In fact, in 5th, they grant the exact same amount of cover as being inside of area terrain, such as ruins.
Again about the obscurement thing....the SMS rules do not get around it. Sure, you can shoot w/o seeing the target, but the rules in the Tau codex do change the fact that you still fired at an "obscured" target, by the definition of "obscured" in the BRB; thus there is no codex>BRB issue...the Codex never mentions that negates cover from being "obscured".
Obscured = being "in cover". I know you don't like it, but that is the rule.
Welcome to 5th edition.
3872
Post by: paidinfull
Everyone of us knows Codex Trumps BGB.
This is especially true when regarding wargear.
A Perfect Example, is Smoke Launchers
C:SM Smoke Launchers: See BGB
We check 5th BGB and smoke launchers grant the vehicle "obscured" status for the following turn.
C: DH, C:BT Smoke Launchers downgrade all penetrating hits to glancing.
We have 2x definitions. One in the BGB and One in the Codex.
A model does not gain cover from SMS because of intervening objects, or being obscured, as they have to be touching it if it lies between them and the firer. It's stated right in the SMS entry.
SMS defines what "cover" is in it's wargear description.
You are either IN IT or TOUCHING IT. That's it.
This is incredibly simple hence my short post immediately after the OP.
To quote yourself Alerian
The rules only care about what is written...never about what is implied.
That is exactly right. What is written... everything that is written in the rule, not just part of it.
The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer.
Your sentence is contrived and attempting to only focus on a portion of the sentence rather than it's entirety. Saying that because a part of it is obscured and that it therefore counts as "in cover" based on the full sentence is reaching as the sentence clearly means physically IN cover. You know this by looking at the whole sentence.
When any part of the target model is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover." This clearly falls under the second portion of the sentence where "IF IT LIES BETWEEN THEM AND THE FIRER", they gain cover only if they are touching it.
The OP is correct. If they aren't touching it, they don't gain a cover save if it is intervening.
11273
Post by: Alerian
Paidinfull:
Cover rules have changed in 5th......
Whether you like it or not, an obscured target is "in cover", by definition in 5th ed, not "behind cover".
The SMS rules allow cover saves for models that are "in cover".
It never stipulates "in area terrain" or "in physical cover".
Obscurement = "in cover", by definition, and by the wording of SMS, cover saves may be taken.
I understand that this was not the intent when the rule was written; however, it is the rule now, and we must play by the rules as they are currenly written.
6150
Post by: Regwon
paidinfull wrote:
A model does not gain cover from SMS because of intervening objects, or being obscured, as they have to be touching it if it lies between them and the firer. It's stated right in the SMS entry.
SMS defines what "cover" is in it's wargear description.
You are either IN IT or TOUCHING IT. That's it.
Again these are two interpretations that dont follwo the RaW.
The SMS does not define what cover is. That is defined on p21 of the BGB. It says that a target is in cover if it is obscured from the firer.
It also does not say that the target only gets a cover save if it is or touching cover (which is impossible anyway since "cover" is an abstraction rather than an actual object and you cant touch or be in an abstraction). No where does it say that they must be touching it or in it to gain a save. It says models that are in it or touching it can gain a same, however, the rules cant apply because "cover" as an object that a model can touch or be in no longer exists.
You are still infering that a model cannot gain a save if they are not touching or in cover, which the rules do not say (even if they did it would be impossible in 5th).
10223
Post by: Tyron
How can models be obscured from the firer LOS if you don't need to check LOS for the SMS?
They don't, as it states, if models are obscured from the LOS of the firer, luckily they're not as we don't need to check LOS.
11273
Post by: Alerian
Tyron wrote:How can models be obscured from the firer LOS if you don't need to check LOS for the SMS?
They don't, as it states, if models are obscured from the LOS of the firer, luckily they're not as we don't need to check LOS.
You are still confusing the rules that allow you to fire w/o needing LOS, and the rules granting obscurment...one does not equal the other. You just need to re-read both sections in the rules, because we have explained them to you MANY times and you still are not understaning.
It is the same way that my Eldar do not need LOS to cast Eldritch Storm. However, if the model is obscured from the Farseer's view, the target will get a cover save.
It is the EXACT same thing as SMS. No LOS is required to fire; however, that doesn't change the fact that the target is still obscured from view, and thus by definition is "in cover", by RAW.
The rules do not say that you lose the cover save from obscurement if the firer doesn't need LOS to fire. Just because you can shoot w/o seeing your target, does not mean that you get to ignore other rules, as well.
Again, SMS says that you may take cover saves against them if you are in cover. 5th ed says that if you are obscured, you are "in cover".
The rules are VERY clear....it is the intent (and edition change) that muddles things up. Nonetheless, we must play by the actual rules.
3872
Post by: paidinfull
Seriously?!
What if I said to you that my interpretation is how it is played in large tournaments? Ones where people consistently argue over rules such as this?
TAU.27E.02 – Q: Can enemy non-vehicle models utilize a cover save against Smart Missile System wounds?
A: As the weapon does not require line of sight, they may only claim a cover save if at least half of their models are actually in terrain and/or touching a piece of intervening terrain [clarification].
Ref: ELD.45B.02, TAU.30K.01
http://www.adepticon.org/files/INATFAQv2.2.pdf
The OP is 100% within RAW. You are attempting to extrapolate parts of a sentence and manipulate it to meet your criteria. It is obvious that cover is defined as being actually in it, not "counting as" being in it.
If one of the largest tournaments in the US, an FAQ that GW 'Ard Boyz is using, is incorrect... well clearly you know something we all don't.
Ridiculous.
@ OP
Show him the FAQ.
11273
Post by: Alerian
Read the Tenets of YMDC. Particularly, point #2.
Only GW rules and erratta/FAQs are to be used. The Inat FAQ is not offcial. It is simply used in tourneys that adopt it.
We are discussing the RAW that GW has written. If you want to discuss RAI, you need to clarify that, and post accordingly.
I (and others) have shown where being obscured = being "in cover" (gp. 21 BRB).
Until you can show an official rule that says you lose that cover if your opponent does not require LOS, your entire arguement is moot, because the SMS entry states that you get saves for being "in cover".
10223
Post by: Tyron
Yes it reads point of view from the firer. We all know all units shoot linier (which defines if the target is obscured or not), unless specified. The SMS is except from linier shooting and thus is unaffected.
I agree with paiidinfull, you lot are only reading half the sentence and not taking all of it, the SMS description into context. Even in the obscure section of the second half of the first parograph which everyones doesn't quote is giving a description of why they're getting it.
11273
Post by: Alerian
Tyron wrote:Yes it reads point of view from the firer. We all know all units shoot linier (which defines if the target is obscured or not), unless specified. The SMS is except from linier shooting and thus is unaffected.
I agree with paiidinfull, you lot are only reading half the sentence and not taking all of it, the SMS description into context to give yourself a cover save.
Again, you are writing intent and interpretation into the rules. This is a discussion about written rules, not intent.
I have shown you thw RAW of why your interpretation is wrong. Being obscured = being "in cover", and the SMS allows saves for being in cover, per RAW.
Show me the written GW rules that say you are right, and that not needing LOS = ignoring the cover save for being obscured.
Let me help, its not there.
The only thing close is under "Barrage Weapons", and while SMS might function in a similar fashion, they still are not "Barrage".
5873
Post by: kirsanth
SMS does not ignore LOS.
Really.
rtfm.
It allows , and I quote (again) "The smart missle system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not."
Extrapolation? Here you go:
Tyron wrote:if you don't need to check LOS for the SMS?
Wrong. Utterly.
In fact, you are required to check LOS to find out if this even matters.
It does mention cover, and in no way does this contradict, negate, or even relate to the rules for cover in the main rules.
So, yes, it can ENGAGE models in cover.
Those models then get cover saves.
Still.
10223
Post by: Tyron
Alerian do you know what obscure means? You do know for something to be obscure they have to see it first for the target to be obscure, the SMS doesn't need LOS so how can something that doesnt need to see a target be obscured.
It is impossible, you are now breaking the law of physics.
Again you quote me the obscured section which is for all units who shoot in linier unless their special rule states other wise such as the SMS.
and like paidinfull says either everyone else is wrong and you and a few other people know something we don't (breaking the law of physics) or we are all cheating. Which is it? Automatically Appended Next Post: Tyron wrote:Alerian do you know what obscure means? You do know for something to be obscure they have to see it first for the target to be obscure, the SMS doesn't need LOS so how can something that doesnt need to see a target be obscured.
It is impossible, you are now breaking the law of physics.
Again you quote me the obscured section which is for all units who shoot in linier unless their special rule states other wise such as the SMS.
and like paidinfull says either everyone else is wrong and you and a few other people know something we don't (breaking the law of physics) or we are all cheating. Which is it?
"In fact, you are required to check LOS to find out if this even matters. "
Correct for those with linier shooting unless specified, in the SMS description you don't need to check for LOS.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Tyron wrote:Correct for those with linier shooting unless specified, in the SMS description you don't need to check for LOS.
Quote please?
It never says that. I actually quoted why you are wrong about 6 times.
11273
Post by: Alerian
Tyron wrote:Alerian do you know what obscure means? You do know for something to be obscure they have to see it first for the target to be obscure, the SMS doesn't need LOS so how can something that doesnt need to see a target be obscured.
It is impossible, you are now breaking the law of physics.
Again you quote me the obscured section which is for all units who shoot in linier unless their special rule states other wise such as the SMS.
and like paidinfull says either everyone else is wrong and you and a few other people know something we don't (breaking the law of physics) or we are all cheating. Which is it?
1. There are no "linear" shooting rules in 40k. There are just shooting rules, with subsets, such as "barrage".
2. Real Physics play no bearing on 40k rules.
3. Dictionary definitions don't matter in 40k, as the BRB defines what the game terms are (such as obscured)
4. I have already pointed you to the Tenets of YMDC, and yet you continue to break them. Please, read them, them come back for a real discussion.
The writtten rules to not back up your interpretations...at all. The rules must say that SMS ignore obscurement cover saves for you to be right, since being obscured = being "in cover" in 5th edition.
If you want to play RAI, that is fine (I think the whole obscured saves are rather broken and I miss the old cover save rules, myself). However, all you have offered is your interpretation, based on how things worked in 4th ed and how you think things should work, based on "the real world". None of that matters in a 5th ed rules discussion; all that matters are the written rules.
10223
Post by: Tyron
kirsanth how does the majority of units check to see if they can shoot a target? It even says throughout the book LINE (linier) of sight.
That is my quote.
"Real Physics play no bearing on 40k rules. "
Really? Then what is LINE (linier) of sight? That is physics right there.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I'm locking this thread for generating too many complaints.
If anyone wants it unlocked they can PM me.
|
|
