This one has me confused.

I understand how terrain will give cover based on whether it's blocking enough of the model and whether or not it's area terrain. That part is clear.

I am unclear on cover saves by intervening units though.

The case is, I have my termagaunts running in front of the bigger 'Nids, specifically a Hive Tyrant. Now the gaunts barely obscure the HT at all, a just some bits of his legs are out of TLOS. Do I understand the rules correctly that in this case it doesn't matter, enemies shooting through the gaunts will cause the HT to get the Cover Save?

The other way around, as the HT is a lot bigger than the gaunts, he can actually look/shoot completely over he gaunts he's standing just behind and hence the gaunts being in the way don't give a cover save for the HT's return fire?

Did I get that right?

B.

If they are shooting THROUGH your gaunts, not OVER, then that provides a cover save.

the rules aren't entirely clear, some people go with if your opponent's units are firing through the intervening models (tracing the line of the shots roughly to the centre of mass of the target) you get a cover save, others go by the 25% rule, but include the space between models as obscuring the target as well. Either way, unless they're up on a hill or some other sort of terrain, your termagants aren't giving your Hive Tyrant a cover save, they also definitely won't give cover to your opponent unless they're standing right in front of them.

Nope, the rules are clear

Firing *through* an intervening unit, regardless of %age cover, and including the gaps between models in the unit, grants a cover save.

So if your LOS is traced through the unit, or can be, then you grant a cover save.

A handy diagram to explain the rule!

The rules are quite clear on this issue.

but include the space between models as obscuring the target as well

That is how it should be played
BRB:
"If a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer."

The BRB also tells us to treat the intervening units as terrain, thus giving it a 5+ cover.
And the same page also tells us that a model can only claim cover if he is 25% obscured.

WSN wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/3mYIoXs.png
A handy diagram to explain the rule!

Well, that guy isn't obscured for at least 25% so he doesn't get a cover-save It's more 20% or something.
You should make the Nid-dog a little bigger.

You JUSt quoted the rule which tells you you can ignore the 25% requirement.

If you fire THROUGH an intervening unit, you grant a 5+ cover save.

So a Warhound Titan is getting coversave because you fire through 2 Ork Boyz?

The intent is quite clear.
Models do not actually stand still, you have to treat them as if they are moving around.
That line is there to stop people from being TFG and denying the cover save.

Best way to treat an intervening unit is to act as if there is a wall that has the same height as the models.

Kangodo wrote:
So a Warhound Titan is getting coversave because you fire through 2 Ork Boyz?

If the table top positioning has everyone in a position so that the shots at the warhound have to go through the 2 boyz to get there? Yes.

You have got to be kidding me -_-'

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You JUSt quoted the rule which tells you you can ignore the 25% requirement.

That's your inference, it's not what the rule actually says. Given the various caveats in the same sentence and paragraph (nevermind the basically undefined term in the quote), I would instead infer that the gaps between models apply towards the 25%. Otherwise, "in the same way as if it was behind terrain", "Similarly", and "does not apply if the shots go over" are all mostly ignored.

I mean, really, if you're going to claim that 1% coverage by the gap means they invoke the "fires through" clause, then there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that I couldn't similarly claim that 1% over means they invoke the "does not apply" clause.

Forget what I said about the rules not being clear, they're very clear. The problem is they very clearly mean one thing or another depending on who you ask.

Kangodo wrote:
The rules are quite clear on this issue.

but include the space between models as obscuring the target as well

That is how it should be played
BRB:
"If a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer."

The BRB also tells us to treat the intervening units as terrain, thus giving it a 5+ cover.
And the same page also tells us that a model can only claim cover if he is 25% obscured.

WSN wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/3mYIoXs.png
A handy diagram to explain the rule!

Well, that guy isn't obscured for at least 25% so he doesn't get a cover-save It's more 20% or something.
You should make the Nid-dog a little bigger.

Even if completely visable, its granted a 5+ cover save

 Nem wrote:
Even if completely visable, its granted a 5+ cover save

But only if the gap between two models is the only reason that it's not "obscured", I hope that people understand that

Kangodo wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Even if completely visable, its granted a 5+ cover save

But only if the gap between two models is the only reason that it's not "obscured", I hope that people understand that

Not sure if this is meant for making sure 5+ isnt given when no units are there at all,
Or if you mean becuase If a member of the obscuring unit would have to cover 25% if they were directly in front of it to claim the 5+ for shooting through gaps, which causes issues when trying to work out with units like gargoyles


[Edit] How our group plays it is per WSN's diagram, we do not take a % of potentional obscurity into account.

 Nem wrote:
Not sure if this is meant for making sure 5+ isnt given when no units are there at all,
Or if you mean becuase If a member of the obscuring unit would have to cover 25% if they were directly in front of it to claim the 5+ for shooting through gaps, which causes issues when trying to work out with units like gargoyles

Well, it's more of a RAI vs RAW debate.
As I read it, RAW means that a Titan behind an Ork Boy gains no cover save.
But a Titan that can be seen through the gap between two Ork Boyz would get a 5+

(Please note that I am using the titan as an abbreviation and example of 'huge model that probably won't get a cover-save from any other model in the game')

The rule says that when you have 100% vision of a model due to a gap, you still have to give it a cover-save.
But I hope everyone agrees that it should be treated as "you still have to give it a cover save <as if there was a model in it's path>", which means you have to follow the 25%-rule.
And that can give issues with units like Gargoyles, but that is nothing compared to what the actual wording seems to say.

I think everyone can agree on the interpretation of "gap" and 25% obscured.

One question I have, to throw into the mix, is cover across an ADL. My meta plays an ADL as 4+ cover, but what happens if units firing at each other are 12" away from the ADL on opposite sides? If both sides get a cover save, how close do you need to be to the ADL to not give a cover save?

Close enough to see over it and not have the ADL obscure 25% of the target.

TLOS - it's not just a suggestion, it's the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Close enough to see over it and not have the ADL obscure 25% of the target.

TLOS - it's not just a suggestion, it's the rules.

I agree, but at what point do you get the 4+ from being behind an ADL and when do you get the normal 5+ for 25% obscured cover? Or do you say that 25%+ cover behind an ADL gives you a 4+? Maybe I am thinking too logically on this, but getting the 4+ to me represents being ducked down directly behind the ADL with only your weapon and and head poking out.

I ask because I saw a game last week where people were arguing that simply firing across the ADL because it was his, gave all of their units behind it 4+ cover. Sure you can argue 25% obscured and TLOS but then when is it a 4+ and when a 5+?

Moridan wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Close enough to see over it and not have the ADL obscure 25% of the target.

TLOS - it's not just a suggestion, it's the rules.

I agree, but at what point do you get the 4+ from being behind an ADL and when do you get the normal 5+ for 25% obscured cover? Or do you say that 25%+ cover behind an ADL gives you a 4+? Maybe I am thinking too logically on this, but getting the 4+ to me represents being ducked down directly behind the ADL with only your weapon and and head poking out.

I ask because I saw a game last week where people were arguing that simply firing across the ADL because it was his, gave all of their units behind it 4+ cover. Sure you can argue 25% obscured and TLOS but then when is it a 4+ and when a 5+?

The ADL always confers a 4+ cover, it is described as such on the BRB, however like any other terrain piece (except area terrain) you need to be 25% obscured, if you are behind the ADL you get a 4+ and never a 5+. This however applies to both sides if one of the owner units is far behind the ADL and shoots an enemy unit obscured by the ADL they get a 4+ cover as well.

Moridan wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Close enough to see over it and not have the ADL obscure 25% of the target.

TLOS - it's not just a suggestion, it's the rules.

I agree, but at what point do you get the 4+ from being behind an ADL and when do you get the normal 5+ for 25% obscured cover? Or do you say that 25%+ cover behind an ADL gives you a 4+? Maybe I am thinking too logically on this, but getting the 4+ to me represents being ducked down directly behind the ADL with only your weapon and and head poking out.

I ask because I saw a game last week where people were arguing that simply firing across the ADL because it was his, gave all of their units behind it 4+ cover. Sure you can argue 25% obscured and TLOS but then when is it a 4+ and when a 5+?

It's a 5+ unless the thing providing cover says otherwise.
What cover does an ADL provide?

rigeld2 wrote:
It's a 5+ unless the thing providing cover says otherwise.
What cover does an ADL provide?

Oooh hell no! Everyone, slowly back away!
If we don't make any sudden movement, maybe they won't see us.

But to answer Moridan:
The save is mostly determined by the object that obscures the model.
Most of the objects that can give cover are described in the BRB.
It's quite obvious that a couple of trees aren't as good as a wall or a ruin.

Pyrian wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You JUSt quoted the rule which tells you you can ignore the 25% requirement.

That's your inference, it's not what the rule actually says. Given the various caveats in the same sentence and paragraph (nevermind the basically undefined term in the quote), I would instead infer that the gaps between models apply towards the 25%. Otherwise, "in the same way as if it was behind terrain", "Similarly", and "does not apply if the shots go over" are all mostly ignored.

I mean, really, if you're going to claim that 1% coverage by the gap means they invoke the "fires through" clause, then there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that I couldn't similarly claim that 1% over means they invoke the "does not apply" clause.

Not at all. The rule says "if you fire through..."

Are you firing through the gaps? Yes? Then you give a cover save.

So if you can see a model through a gap, that model gains a cover save.
Even if the intervening unit are Ork Boyz and the target is a 15" high model?
But when one of the same Ork Boyz is standing in front of it, then he won't get cover because he is only 1% obscured?

Seriously.. Go away please.
The OP had a problem because things were unclear, the last thing he needs is a philosophical debate on the crappy GW-rules.


And how it should work and how most people play it with intervening units:
Is the target obscured for 25% or more?
Yes => 5+ save
No, because the intervening models are too low => No save.
No, because there is a gap between models that would otherwise obscure it => 5+ save

Kangodo wrote:
You have got to be kidding me -_-'

If you get yourself into a position where the only way you can shoot a titan is to have the shots literally pass through two boyz standing between it and you, you only have yourself to blame.

Kangodo wrote:So if you can see a model through a gap, that model gains a cover save.

Yes, because that is what the rules, that you posted, explicitly state.

Kangodo wrote:Even if the intervening unit are Ork Boyz and the target is a 15" high model?

Yes. What does this have to do with the actual rules? Or are you, yet again, arguing "HIWPI" desptie not explicitly stating so in your posts, as required by the forum rules? You keep doing that.

Kangodo wrote:But when one of the same Ork Boyz is standing in front of it, then he won't get cover because he is only 1% obscured?

Yes, because, and again, that is what the rules state

its almost like the game is an abstraction, whcih like all abstractions will break down on edge cases. Shock.

Kangodo wrote:Seriously.. Go away please.

No. You go away, or mark your posts appropriately as "HIWPI" . It is clear you have no rules argument.

Kangodo wrote:The OP had a problem because things were unclear, the last thing he needs is a philosophical debate on the crappy GW-rules.

I'm not being philosophical, I am pointing out the actual rules. YOU are the one railing against them.

Kangodo wrote:And how it should work and how most people play it with intervening units:

Citation required. MOST people I know, which is over 200 through regular tournament and local club attendance, play it according to the explicitly defined rules.

Luckily we have "Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it."

The 25%-rule is there to explain when a shot goes over cover and when it has to go through cover.

So you are saying you only get the cover save if the model could possibly cover 25% of said model? So a line of orcs in front of the titan wouldn't do it ever?

Wait wait wait.

If a unit's height covers less than 25% of the TLOS of the unit behind it, that 2nd unit is not afforded a cover save.

Is this not correct?

edit: clarifying

Kangodo wrote:
Luckily we have "Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it."

The 25%-rule is there to explain when a shot goes over cover and when it has to go through cover.

Which I have already covered. Shocking I know.

If you are right next to the ork boyz, and shooting at the titan, then your shots are not going OVER the unit, but through it.

So, are you still arguing HIWPI? Please note if so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dracos wrote:
Wait wait wait.

If a unit's height covers less than 25% of the TLOS of the unit behind it, that 2nd unit is not afforded a cover save.

Is this not correct?

edit: clarifying

This is the general rule. The exception is when you are shooting through a unit, in which case EVEN IF they are ENTIRELY VISIBLE then you grant them a cover save, The rules explicitly state this

Kangodo - still waiting for your citation on "most people" playing it the way you state, which is counter to the actual rules. Do you have any empirical evidence you can point to? Anything? Or should I just "go away" for wanting you to follow the tenets of this forum and actually back up your assertions with something demonstrable?

 Dracos wrote:
Wait wait wait.

If a unit's height covers less than 25% of the TLOS of the unit behind it, that unit is not afforded a cover save.

Is this not correct?

If a unit's height covers less than 25% of the TLOS from the firing unit to the unit being fired upon then the unit being fired upon is not afforded a cover save.

However, if the shots go through the gaps in a unit, regardless of the height of the models in the "Gap" unit, then the rules afford a cover save to the unit being fired upon.

Basically if a firing unit can see a model (Target) through a gap in a different unit then that model gains a cover save even if the intervening unit is a unit of Ork Boyz and the target is a 15" high model.

Wow I don't have my rulebook here at work, but that is seriously messed up if true. I'm going to have to reread that section I guess. I thought the rule was with respect to the gap between models leaving the unit visible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which I have already covered. Shocking I know.

Not really, because you didn't explain when you are shooting over and when you are shooting through.
Shocking, right?

If you are right next to the ork boyz, and shooting at the titan, then your shots are not going OVER the unit, but through it.

Even if you are standing 12" away? Because the rules are unclear about it.

So, are you still arguing HIWPI? Please note if so.

I did.

This is the general rule. The exception is when you are shooting through a unit, in which case EVEN IF they are ENTIRELY VISIBLE then you grant them a cover save, The rules explicitly state this

Which doesn't make sense at all.
The intent is quite clear, the models are actually moving all the time and they just stand still for gameplay-reasons. (page 9)
That implies that a gap isn't really a gap, because the models aren't standing still like a statue.

Therefore the best way to play it is to act as if there is a "wall" with the height of the unit.

Just for the sake of argument, what defines when a unit is "shooting through a unit" versus shooting over a unit?

 Dracos wrote:
Just for the sake of argument, what defines when a unit is "shooting through a unit" versus shooting over a unit?

RAW? Nothing as far as I know.

HYWPI?
I think the 25%-rule explains it.
If the target is 25% hidden, that means the chance to 'miss' is too big or they can't get a decent shot.

I think it is shooting thru if any part of the model would cover the target. Shooting over if no part of the model would cover it.

But that would contradict with the part where units get a cover-save if the model is 25% obscured.

Yes, that applies to terrain.
The part about intervening units tells us to treat it "as if it was behind terrain".

So I guess that even intervening units have to cover them for 25%

No b/c the BRB give the exception that even if no part of model is covered when shooting thru a unit......

But I would say if a unit is below on a hill and no part of would cover it you are shooting over it.

Kangodo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which I have already covered. Shocking I know.

Not really, because you didn't explain when you are shooting over and when you are shooting through.
Shocking, right?

Erm, sorry, I thought the words "over" and "through" were fairly self explanatory. Apparently not.

Kangodo wrote:

If you are right next to the ork boyz, and shooting at the titan, then your shots are not going OVER the unit, but through it.

Even if you are standing 12" away? Because the rules are unclear about it.

Really? See above. You see this thing called "True Line of Sight", that lets you know when your True Line of Sight is traced THROUGH or OVER. Shocking.

Kangodo wrote:

So, are you still arguing HIWPI? Please note if so.

I did.

Nope, not when you told me to "go away" you didnt. Or in that post just now. Shocking. Found that citation yet that "MOST PEOPLE" play the way that most people I know dont?

Kangodo wrote:

This is the general rule. The exception is when you are shooting through a unit, in which case EVEN IF they are ENTIRELY VISIBLE then you grant them a cover save, The rules explicitly state this

Which doesn't make sense at all.

Apparnetly you are still unclear on certain words, such as "abstraction". The game is an abstraction. To represent (abstractly!) unit cohesion, you have a maximum spacing between models. In order to stop you explouting this gap, to deny saves, even if you spread out you *abstractly* still grant a cover save.

Kangodo wrote:The intent is quite clear, the models are actually moving all the time and they just stand still for gameplay-reasons. (page 9)

The actual, explicit rule that explicitly states otherwise is also quite clear. Meaning your clear intent is not. Given it is also the same rule as 5th.....I would suggest that this never FAQd rule, that has lasted two editions, is *probably* what they meant.

Kangodo wrote:That implies that a gap isn't really a gap, because the models aren't standing still like a statue.

Therefore the best way to play it is to act as if there is a "wall" with the height of the unit.

Nope, the BEST way to play it, absent ambiguity (which there isnt in this rule) is by the clear as a bell rules. Or are you going to make up more statements, like "most people" playing it the way you do?

Still waiting on a citation for that. Any chance you could find something? Anything?

General and only warning: turn the snark down, or you'll be taking a vacation.

I have to disagree with Nos that the rules are "clear as a bell". I think this area has some ambiguity, and personally I come down in a rather different position.

In 6th, the rules have been tweaked a bit and the way different models get cover is pretty consistent. MCs can get cover saves from area terrain the same way other models do, and vehicles are the only exception. Every model is subject to needing to be 25% hidden (25% of the targeted facing still, for vehicles) if they're not in area terrain, as opposed to any tiny piece of the model's body (or 50% body/facing for MCs and vehicles), like in 5th.

Three other changes:
1. Cover saves are now model by model instead of "all or none"; in 5th, if half or more of the models in the targeted unit were in cover from the perspective of half or more of the firing models, the whole unit got a cover save. Now each model either is in cover or not in cover.
2. The other thing that changed in the requirement above is that instead of "half or more of the firing models", as in 5th, it's "at least one" firing model.
3. Area terrain no longer generally confers a cover save for shooting ACROSS it. If the targeted model isn't actually in it, it needs to be 25% hidden. With the exception of Forests (see page 102); which have a specific rule that if at least one of the firing models is drawing LOS across a forest, cover is granted.

Other than area terrain and shooting across forests, the only other time you can get a cover save in 6th without being 25% hidden, is when you're being shot across/through an intervening unit. See page 18. While it does say that a 5+ cover save is conferred in the same way as behind terrain, the next two sentences tell us that "Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it."

So, we know that a model which is totally visible to the firing model can still be in cover if LOS is traced to them between to models in an intervening unit.

The area of ambiguity comes in determining WHEN LOS counts as being drawn between the models, as opposed to OVER them.

Back in 5th the guideline that was generally used was to draw LOS from the firer's eyes (which is still the standard, see p8), to all parts of the target's body- head to toe. If you could draw a line from the eyes to the bottom of the feet without that line going through the plane drawn between the tops of two models in the intervening unit, you had a clean LOS and no cover.

Now in 6th, it would appear that the same procedure should be used, but instead of the bottom of the feet, we've got to go with whatever point on the model constitutes the 25% line for that model's mass/silhouette, as the requirement is now 25% hidden. And it looks to me like that empty air between models in an intervening unit is to be treated (per page 18) as something that confers cover saves.

At least that's my take on it.

A couple quotes I found relevant when rereading this section given this thread:

Cover saves p.18

"Often, you'll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, also known as being in cover."

"Determining Cover Saves
If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body [...] is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save."

"Intervening Models
If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit [...], it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it."

I wonder if the first text quoted is to separate the concepts of "partially hidden" and "obscured by terrain" as two separate ways of being in cover?

This is less clear than I thought it was too. I have played, and seen played, that if the intervening unit would not provide 25% obscured status given the "filling in" of the gaps between models, then no cover save. But now I'm really not sure.

Thanks all for the replies.

At least it looks like I was right to be confused. I'm going to reread the whole thing again slowly now

I do definitely agree that this is bad ruleswriting though.

the rules for Int model state that:
if your target is behind intervieneing models, even if the target is COMPLETLY VISABLE, and that the 25% rule does not apply to Int models, the target gets a 5+ cover

GW has purposefully put a penalty on shooting at a unit that isnt the closest/behind other units for several editions now, just to back up that RAW above with some more RAI

Cover saves are also based on a per model basis when looking at a squad. It is entirely possible for a squad of SM to get no cover saves on the closest models then as casualties get deeper and go behind an intervening unit they would get a 5+. It is interesting how the rules conflict. I believe proper resolution is if the model would be 25% obscured should the intervening unit actually be in the way. It is a bit obscene to assume that a unit that could never reasonably cover 25% of a model can grant a save by just being spread out across its frontage.

easysauce wrote:
the rules for Int model state that:
if your target is behind intervieneing models, even if the target is COMPLETLY VISABLE, and that the 25% rule does not apply to Int models, the target gets a 5+ cover
GW has purposefully put a penalty on shooting at a unit that isnt the closest/behind other units for several editions now, just to back up that RAW above with some more RAI

That is untrue.
The rules for int-models talk about "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by..."
And on the same page it is explained that you get a cover save for being 25% obscured, indicating that "partially hidden" means 25% or more.

The only 'problem' is that a gap would give cover when it wouldn't get cover if the model stood right before it.

Kangodo wrote:

easysauce wrote:
the rules for Int model state that:
if your target is behind intervieneing models, even if the target is COMPLETLY VISABLE, and that the 25% rule does not apply to Int models, the target gets a 5+ cover
GW has purposefully put a penalty on shooting at a unit that isnt the closest/behind other units for several editions now, just to back up that RAW above with some more RAI

That is untrue.
The rules for int-models talk about "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by..."
And on the same page it is explained that you get a cover save for being 25% obscured, indicating that "partially hidden" means 25% or more.

The only 'problem' is that a gap would give cover when it wouldn't get cover if the model stood right before it.

you need to read the part of interviening models that says the 25% rule specifically does NOT apply, and that even if the model is completly visable to the firer, it still counts as obscured. In no part of the interviening models rule does it impose a % that must be covered, and explicitly removes the 25% rule, and explicitly states "even if the target is completly visable"

hence why when you say "but the target is completly visable, why does it get a save?" then answer is "because intevening models rule gives a cover save when shooting through intervening models, even if the target is comepletly visable"

Kangodo wrote:
So a Warhound Titan is getting coversave because you fire through 2 Ork Boyz?

The intent is quite clear.
Models do not actually stand still, you have to treat them as if they are moving around.
That line is there to stop people from being TFG and denying the cover save.

Best way to treat an intervening unit is to act as if there is a wall that has the same height as the models.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't a warhound titan a vehicle? If so intervening models don't provide a cover save as vehicles have their own rules for determining cover saves.

WSN wrote:


A handy diagram to explain the rule!

Unless that "Attack Dog" is part of the "Manly Tyranid's" unit that marine will get a cover save as he is shooting through another unit.


Unless you're on a building, hill, or other structure changing your elevation I don't believe there's anything allowing you to aim your shooting upwards to shoot over a intervening unit.

He's not. You trace LoS from the eyes and the image shows that the manly Tyranid can look from the toes to the head of his target and not shoot through a unit.

Marine gets no cover save.

rigeld2 wrote:
He's not. You trace LoS from the eyes and the image shows that the manly Tyranid can look from the toes to the head of his target and not shoot through a unit.

Marine gets no cover save.

Thanks for pointing this out! Learn a little something every day here on Dakka.

Mann - where are you getting the idea that firing "through" a unit means anything other than the literal "does your shot pass throught eh unit" that the sentence parses out as?

There is no 25% rule that I can find, and you did not cite where you got this from. The "alarmingly clear" part is because a) you are told you can be completely visibile and b) there are NO rules contradicting the plain-English meaning of "through" in "firing through the gaps" - which is what you are altering.

You are chaging "through" to "through such that 25% of the model is covered"

Because one could claim that his units aim at the head and shots wouldn't go through the models.
instead of "your models shoot at waist-level" we have the 25%-rule.

Again - post where that applies to "shooting through". Page and paragraph. Not an assertion, an actual rule.

Currently we are told to see if models are "shooting through". using TLOS we can determine that 100% accurately with no furthe rrequirements - and no further requirements are given.

TLoS to what? Eyes, chest, waist or legs?

Kangodo wrote:
TLoS to what? Eyes, chest, waist or legs?

What counts for LoS purposes is defined by the rules elsewhere (legs, body, arms, head, not wings or weapons).

Edit: Not tails, either. Makes Gargoyles a pain, actually.

 Janthkin wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
TLoS to what? Eyes, chest, waist or legs?

What counts for LoS purposes is defined by the rules elsewhere (legs, body, arms, head, not wings or weapons).

Exactly this.

You must include the legs, body, arms and head. If you have line of sight over an intervening unit to the legs, body, arms and head then no cover save. If line of sight passes through the gaps in a unit when using TLOS to the legs, body, arms and head of a target model, then cover save is granted.

So in that case I will just say: "My model fires at the head of your big Tyranid, therefore firing over the gap instead of through the gap and he will gain no cover-save."

And that is the entire point of this rules-confusion.
When does a model shoot over a unit/model and when does he shoot through them?
The rule says nothing about where you should aim at.

The most straight-forward and simplest answer to that problem is written on the same page:
<25% obscured = over the unit/model and disallowing a cover save.
25%+ obscured = through the unit/model and thus giving a cover save.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you have line of sight over an intervening unit to the legs, body, arms and head then no cover save. If line of sight passes through the gaps in a unit when using TLOS to the legs, body, arms and head of a target model, then cover save is granted.

Yup, 100% right.
But the problem is when you have line of sight over AND through a unit because the target-model is so large.

You made rule 1: If you have line of sight over an intervening unit to the legs, body, arms and head then no cover save.
And we have rule 2: If line of sight passes through the gaps in a unit when using TLOS to the legs, body, arms and head of a target model, then cover save is granted.

So what if both rule 1 AND 2 apply?


Additional clarification with example and image:


Imagine that there is a huge demon between the mountains, his head reaching to the top of the image.
And the mountains are actually a unit of Space Marines.

When I fire at his legs, the shot will go through the gap and he gets cover.
When I fire at his head, the shot will go over the gap and he gets no cover.

You are saying that the 25%-rule does not apply here.
So please give me the page-number that tells me at what body-part I am supposed to shoot?

Kangodo wrote:
So in that case I will just say: "My model fires at the head of your big Tyranid, therefore firing over the gap instead of through the gap and he will gain no cover-save."

No rules permission to "call your shot". If you can't see him in his entirety (over 75%) he's obstructed.
If, to trace line of sight to the model, you "fire" through a unit (even a gap in a unit) he's obstructed.

The image above is absolutely correct.

Kangodo wrote:
So in that case I will just say: "My model fires at the head of your big Tyranid, therefore firing over the gap instead of through the gap and he will gain no cover-save."

Mind citing a page and graph where this is allowed?

I don't understand the confusion. TLOS is from the eyes of the firer to the entire body of the target.

*If it is physically obscured up to 25%, they get cover.
*If you shoot part of the LOS through a gap of intervening models even though you can see the entire model, they get cover.
*If you can see the entire model OVER a model or OVER the gap between two models, there is no cover.

Closer I am to the gap and taller I am, the better chance I will be seeing over the gap opposed to through it.

nkelsch wrote:
I don't understand the confusion. TLOS is from the eyes of the firer to the entire body of the target.

*If it is physically obscured up to 25%, they get cover.
*If you shoot part of the LOS through a gap of intervening models even though you can see the entire model, they get cover.
*If you can see the entire model OVER a model or OVER the gap between two models, there is no cover.

Closer I am to the gap and taller I am, the better chance I will be seeing over the gap opposed to through it.

The confusion is due to people getting confused with other cover rules.

People keep trying to not only apply the "25% of the model must be covered" in this situation, where it specifically does not apply, and people keep thinking that drawing unobstructed true line of sight to a PART of the model, is the same as being able to draw unobstructed (ie passing through another unit) TLOS to the entire model. Or they apply the "25% for vehicles in area terrain" to the situation of "intervening models", but to non vehicle units.

Does intervening units apply to vehicles then without the 25%?

p74, vehicles need 25% coverage from intervening terrain or models

normal cover rules: 25% of model (vehicle, infantry, monster, whatever) must be "covered" via true LOS

area terrain: auto-cover for everything but vehicles, which still need the 25% as above

intervening models: grants obscured for everything, except vehicles (see above) even if the target is completely visible, so long as the firer draws true LOS to any part of the target through an intervening unit.

so basically only fliers are going to get around it (and likely wont get the save, not that they need it) or units on high hills, ruins, or reallllly tall guys are going to be able to see their target from head to too with out drawing true LOS through a another unit that is in between the two

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
So in that case I will just say: "My model fires at the head of your big Tyranid, therefore firing over the gap instead of through the gap and he will gain no cover-save."

No rules permission to "call your shot". If you can't see him in his entirety (over 75%) he's obstructed.
If, to trace line of sight to the model, you "fire" through a unit (even a gap in a unit) he's obstructed.

The image above is absolutely correct.

This. Kangodo can you please, for once this thread, find a rules quote to back up your assertions?

You have NO permission to "call a shot" to the models head. If you TLOS passthrough the unit , anywhere in your arc of shot, you grant a cover save.

Both rules apply at the same time - not 25% covered, but firing through. No cover save for the first, cover save for the second, meanig you have a cover save.

Really not tricky, and all done without making up any rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This. Kangodo can you please, for once this thread, find a rules quote to back up your assertions?

You have NO permission to "call a shot" to the models head. If you TLOS passthrough the unit , anywhere in your arc of shot, you grant a cover save.

Both rules apply at the same time - not 25% covered, but firing through. No cover save for the first, cover save for the second, meanig you have a cover save.

Really not tricky, and all done without making up any rules.

Except for the part where you made rules up.
Or do you want to cite the page where it says "anywhere in your arc of shot"?

I'm getting quite pissed off.
You keep making up rules and then accuse me of doing it while I am only using existing rules to clear up an error in the rules!

 DeathReaper wrote:
Mind citing a page and graph where this is allowed?

If only that would be so easy, but that still doesn't answer the question I asked.
Where do I shoot at a model when shots could both go over and through an intervening unit?

People here are saying that the 25%-rule doesn't apply to this.
So when do I shoot through a gap and when do I shoot over it?

Kangodo wrote:


People here are saying that the 25%-rule doesn't apply to this.
So when do I shoot through a gap and when do I shoot over it?

*Make a line which connects the top of the two models, that is your GAP.
*Trace LOS from the eyes of the shooter to the entire body of the target, which usually results in a 'cone of vision'
*If any part of that cone of vision passes through the gap, they get cover.

Taller the shooter or closer the shooter is to the gap, the greater chance that they can see with entirety over the gap. Imagine the space between models is 'glass'. If eyes of the model to the toes of the target would 'break the glass' then they get cover.

Kangodo - so you DIDNT make up that you can "call shots"?

I *did not* make up any rules; I explained what "shooting through", using the FACT that this game is TLOS, actually means. As opposed to yoru ENTIRELY made up concept that you can "call a shot" and pretend you are nto shooting through.

It clears everything up, if you are willing to listen and understand.

Youre getting pissed off because you're making up rules and being asked to substantiate it, or to accept that you made up rules. AS per the tenets of this forum please do one or the other.

This is how I understand it to work:

Yes, that's exactly true.

That's a very good reference.

Yep, that is 100% true.

If any part of your shooting would pass through the gap, you grant a cover save.

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
That's a very good reference.

Needs more grots-giving-cover-save-to-Reaver-Titan.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If any part of your shooting would pass through the gap, you grant a cover save.

Still making up rules, I see?
Because that "rule" cannot be found in the BRB.

Intervening Units talks about shots going through the gap.
"any part of your shooting" is completely made up by you.

nkelsch wrote:
*Make a line which connects the top of the two models, that is your GAP.

Understandable, because that is the definition of a GAP.

*Trace LOS from the eyes of the shooter to the entire body of the target, which usually results in a 'cone of vision'

It's called LINE of sight for a reason, can you quote the rule that says 'cone of vision'?

*If any part of that cone of vision passes through the gap, they get cover.

Except for the part where this is not a rule.

If eyes of the model to the toes of the target would 'break the glass' then they get cover.

To the toes of the target? There is no rule that supports this.
However, if we use the 25%-rule you would get cover if 25% of the target is covered by this 'glass'.

I really like your image and I agree with most situations.
But the last image uses a "cone of sight", which has no basis in the rules.
Now we have a shooting that both goes through and over the gap, giving the model 5+ and no cover-save at the same time.

at this point kangodo, honestly if you are still stgueing that you can see the head, and therfore 100% of the model unobstructed, despite the feet being obstrcuted, you have a logic failure.

your method, no one gets cover ever, because as long as I have unobstructed TLOS to any POINT on the model, I have unobstructed TLOS, however this is NOT the case as you repeatedly state, with no rules based backing.

you must have unobstructed TLOS to the whole model through intervening units, not just its head, or any other point of your choosing, you draw TLOS to a MODEL not a part of the model of your choosing.

BRB clearly states you draw LOS to models, not parts of models, drawing LOS to models does result in "cones" or "arcs" because you draw TLOS to the entire model to see if its covered/obscured, not a single point on the model.

why you keep saying that having unobstructed TLOS to the head counts as onobstructed TLOS to the entire model is either due to lack of comprehension, or you are simply too invested in this emotionally to see the point that others, and myself are trying to get you to see

The reason it's a "cone" (well, it's not a cone exactly, but close enough) is that's what you get when you start off from a point and end up at a plane - what you get when you're applying the "25% visible" stuff.

"If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit, or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save" P. 18

How do we know if it is obstructed, unless you take all targetable parts of the model into consideration?

The same applies to "if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it." P. 18

easysauce wrote:
at this point kangodo, honestly if you are still stgueing that you can see the head, and therfore 100% of the model unobstructed, despite the feet being obstrcuted, you have a logic failure.

That is not what I am arguing.
I am arguing that the 25%-rule should be used when firing through a gap, so that when 25% of the target is covered by a gap he will get a 5+ cover-save.
I am arguing against people who claim that if only the feet are obstructed (by the gap) you will get a cover save.

BRB clearly states you draw LOS to models, not parts of models, drawing LOS to models does result in "cones" or "arcs" because you draw TLOS to the entire model to see if its covered/obscured, not a single point on the model.

But these 'cones/arcs' are not supported by the rules.
What the rules do support is when a model is obscured for 25% from the point of view of the shooter.

why you keep saying that having unobstructed TLOS to the head counts as onobstructed TLOS to the entire model is either due to lack of comprehension,

I did not say that!
That other guy was arguing about shots going through and over intervening models and their gaps.
Seeing as there is no rule for shots going over and through something (except for the 25%-rule) that would mean the target both has a 5+ cover and no cover at all.
That's why I am saying the 25%-rule should be used at everything, including gaps.

or you are simply too invested in this emotionally to see the point that others, and myself are trying to get you to see

So now we start to attack persons? Great..

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit, or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save" P. 18
Now do we know if it is obstructed, unless you take all targetable parts of the model into consideration?
The same applies to "if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it." P. 18

It's silly to take all targetable parts

"If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target's model body (as defined on page 8) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save." pg 18
"If a target unit is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit..." pg 18
"Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it." pg 18

Combining those three rules would imply that:
1. Models who are hidden for 25% by terrain get a cover save.
2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

you think its silly to draw LOS to the model, as the rule book says, instead of an arbitraty point chosen by yourself?

feel free to play that way, but thems house rules, not BRB rules.

how can 25% of the model be covered from your line of sight, if you only use 10% (the head) of the model for determining LOS?

if you dont take all parts of the target model into account, you are not following the rules, and cant determine if 25% of the model is covered in the first place.

interviening models, rule specifically grants the obscured "even if the model is COMPLETLY visable"

you are arguing that inteviening models only grants obscured when the model is 25% covered, which is incorrect, as the actual rules in the BRB says even completly visable models can still get the interviening model obscured save.

you keep taking rules that apply to a different situation, normal cover, and try to apply them incorrectly to a completly different situation (intervening models), informing you of that is not an attack my good chap, its a correction.

your statements

2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

are not based in rules, and contradicts the rules completly.

interviening models rule explicitly states the target gets the save when completly visable(0% covered) , as multiple people have pointed out to you, multiple times.

retorting by claiming (contrary to the rules) that 25% is required, is not an arguement, its an assertion with no basis.

the rules cearly state no % is required for intervening models, the only exception is vehicles, which explicitly state in their section that they need 25% coverage for area terrain, terrain, and intervening models to grant the cover save.

Kangodo wrote:

But these 'cones/arcs' are not supported by the rules.
What the rules do support is when a model is obscured for 25% from the point of view of the shooter.

A Line segment is the space between two points.

It defines a point, Firing Models eyes. It defines a target.

It then says you have to determine what part of the model the 'other point' could be. So you have one end a fixed point, the other end an array of fixed points. This produces an ARC by definition. When you go to 3 Dimensions it becomes a 'cone'.

I am unsure why 4th grade math word problems which is explained by telling us the end points of a geometric equation using words somehow makes 'arcs/cones' invalid. They explicitly tell us to do one fixed point to an array of points which instantly becomes expressed as a 2D arc or 3D cone.

Easysauce, I have the feeling that you are completely misreading what I typed.
So I will try to make it clear, because I have the feeling that we actually agree on a lot of stuff.
But yes, implying that I am too emotionally invested to agree with you is attacking a person.

Cover:
The rules do not say what body-part we shoot at, it says we fire at the model.
This brings issues if a model is partially in cover: Is it hidden enough to claim cover it not?
'Determining Cover Saves' addresses this by ruling that a model gains a cover save if 25% or more is obscured from the shooter's PoV (pg 18).

Intervening Units:
'Intervening Units' give a cover save when the target is partially obscured by a third unit.
Since the rule 'Determining Cover Saves' mentions the 25% rule, I believe that with partially they mean 25%.
That is because the rule says "in the same way as if it was behind terrain", we cannot ignore that part!

Gaps:
'Intervening Units'-GAP gives a cover save when the shots go through the gap.
But the BRB does not tell us when a shot goes through a gap and when the shot goes over it.
'Intervening Units'-GAP does use the word "Similarly", which indicates that it works the same as with 'normal' Intervening Units (which means that it works "in the same way as if it was behind terrain".

no I know exactly what you are saying, you are applying "determining cover saves" rules to the ""intervening models" scenario,

when you should be applieing ONLY "intervening models" rules to the "intervening models" scenario.

your assumption that

I believe that with partially they mean 25%.
That is because the rule says "in the same way as if it was behind terrain", we cannot ignore that part!

is not based in the rules, you are taking a DIFFERENT rule (determining cover saves) and applying it to a different situation (intervening model)

despite your "belief" that partially literally means 25%, it does not.

partially, means partially, (more then none) not some set value you assume is correct.

determining cover saves, and intervening models, are different rules, stop applying one to the other, conferring a cover
save "just as if it was behind terrain" is not the same as them saying "the unit must be 25% covered by intervening models to confer a cover save".

I am not ignoring that part, you are simply getting something out of it that is not there. You GIVE the unit a cover save "just as if it was behind terrain", it doesnt say "to determine if a unit behind intervening models gets a cover save, use the rules for determining cover saves as normal"



how can both satements be true:
"25% of the non vehicle-model must be covered to be obscured via intervening models"
--what you state

"even if the (non vehicle) model is completely visable, it counts as obscured"
--what the BRB says


in the end, you very much are applying the wrong rules to the wrong situation, and arguing semantics like that the use of "similarily" in the "intervening models rule" means 25%, or means to use the OTHER rules, or something other then what "similarly" actually means.

you still dont get how the firer has a point (its eyes) and the target is a model (the whole model not just the head)

and that drawing LOS from the eyes to the model includes more then just the parts of the model you WANT to shoot... then I cant help you,

Why shouldn't I use that? Both are about targets in cover.
And the 'Intervening Units'-rule says "as if it was behind terrain".
The only thing that would be even clearer was if it literally said "Use the rules described in Determining Cover Saves" (With caps and everything!)

You are ignoring the "As if it was behind terrain"-part, you aren't allowed to do that!
It should be treated as if it was behind terrain, that means we have to apply those rules and those rules tell us it has to be in cover for at least 25%.
That rule prevents stuff like Titans and other gigantic models to gain cover save from simple Ork Boyz.

It's not my problem that you read that sentence in a wrong way.

how can both satements be true:
"25% of the non vehicle-model must be covered to be obscured via intervening models"
--what you state

"even if the (non vehicle) model is completely visable, it counts as obscured"
--what the BRB says

1. That second quote is talking about the gaps.
2. It tells us to treat the gap as if the unit was behind terrain, meaning that it should be covered for 25% by the gap (Even if you can completely see it, since a gap is nothing but air).

BRB is clear on this.
Treat the Intervening Unit as a piece of terrain.
Treat the gap as a piece of terrain.

Still making up rules, I see?

You are told to fire from A point to A range of points. This produces an arc. (I notice you have ignored that rebuttal once before, I will presume this is another "mistake" like "most people play" and do you the courtesy of drawing you attention to this again)

This arc tells you if you are firing through the gap, or over the gap.

Your 25% assertion has no basis in rules. Provide them, or concede the point.

Not making them up, just quoting them from a rulebook.
..unlike some people.

And no. You are told to fire at a model, not a range of points. Stop making things up.
This creates no arc at all, otherwise the BRB would tell us that it creates an arc. So stop making things up.
The arc, which doesn't exist, does not tell us if we fire through or above a gap. Again: Stop making things up.

I have provided the rules for the 25%-rule often enough.

And yes, in my entire history of Warhammer I have never seen something taller than 4" claiming a cover save from a bunch of Ork Boyz.
Not in my group, not in my LGS, nor in any Battle Report.
So that makes it okay to say: "most people".

Wrong, it makes it ok to say "most people I have played with"

Who you have played with is unlikely to be "most people"

Still making rules up. The 25% rule does not apply to the rule "firing through" because it tells you "even if completely visible". You ave quoted 25% rules whchi exist, but do not apply to this - but you know this.

Youre firing from a single point (the eyes) to the model. Does this or does this not create an arc? If you say "no" you are either unaware of basic geometry, or lying. Which is it?

My sample-data is sufficient enough to say "most people".
So sorry, I will say whatever the hell I want to say.

"As if it was behind terrain."
"Similarly"
You keep ignoring those words, do you do that on purpose?
It tells us that the 25%-rule also applies to these two matters.
You disagree with that. I'm fine with that, I am just happy I never have to play against your huge models who claim a cover save from Boyz.

So let's just "agree to disagree"? Because I am not going into a discussion when people ask me if I am stupid or lying.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong, it makes it ok to say "most people I have played with"

Who you have played with is unlikely to be "most people"

Still making rules up. The 25% rule does not apply to the rule "firing through" because it tells you "even if completely visible". You ave quoted 25% rules whchi exist, but do not apply to this - but you know this.

Youre firing from a single point (the eyes) to the model. Does this or does this not create an arc? If you say "no" you are either unaware of basic geometry, or lying. Which is it?

yeah, this is just beating a dead horse, kang seems unwilling or unable to aknowledge that for any amount of a model to be covered by anything, you have to draw LOS from the eyes of the firer to each point on the target, and see if 25% of the target is obscured.

this whole idea you you can simply "aim at the head" or pick a point on the target favorable to you to avoid intervening models (and by extension, basically all cover that doesnt cover 100% of the target) is simply not correct,

If we can simply choose what part of the model to shoot at, say "hey your orks head is 100% clear over that wall, so no cover for you" then no one gets cover unless they are 100% covered.

because thats what your misinterpretaion of intervening models, coupled with you using the rules for "determining cover saves" in place of the rules for "intervening models", means

you are literally saying, if the firer can draw unobstructed LOS to any part of the target model, then no cover for the target.

you are also literally saying words mean whole different paragrahs, imply a lot of "hidden" data in single words like "similarly" and "partially" that makes them contain unwritten information, instead of merly refering to the paragraphs context they are already in.

but I really dont expect an epiphany at this point as this has been pointed out multiple times by multiple people,

thread should be locked, its just the same person coming back with the same disproven arguements at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
This is how I understand it to work:

for those legitimately wondering how it works, the above graphic is correct

Kangodo wrote:

Combining those three rules would imply that:
1. Models who are hidden for 25% by terrain get a cover save.
2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

People are seriously arguing against this? And claiming to know how to read when they do it?

Ah Dakka, such a source of wisdom...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:

yeah, this is just beating a dead horse, kang seems unwilling or unable to aknowledge that for any amount of a model to be covered by anything, you have to draw LOS from the eyes of the firer to each point on the target, and see if 25% of the target is obscured.

Um, he is literally saying exactly what you just said...

Kangodo - show your sample size calculation to prove that assertion can be extrapolated to "most people". As you have failed to do so your "sample" is enough to say "most of the people I have played with" and nothing more. You can say the unqualified statement, however you would be categorically wrong in doing so.

You have failed to provide the rules required, and have, at every turn, made up rules to support your position and ignored rules which destroy it.

I will agree that you have no rules support, and nothing more.

I have seen at least 50 matches where this houserule of you wasn't used.
Take up some statistics and you'll understand that it is enough.

What rules did I made up?
And what rules do I need to provide?
I am not the person here making up 'arcs' and other bs that is not represented in the BRB or stuff like "through" and "over" a gap which isn't explained either.
I have combined the rules from page 18 of the BRB and came to the following logical conclusion:
1. Models who are hidden for 25% by terrain get a cover save.
2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

This is not only the most natural and logical thing to do, it also follows all the rules in the BRB.

easysauce wrote:
yeah, this is just beating a dead horse, kang seems unwilling or unable to aknowledge that for any amount of a model to be covered by anything, you have to draw LOS from the eyes of the firer to each point on the target, and see if 25% of the target is obscured.

That is exactly what I have been saying all along?
Are you even reading my posts or what?
You are putting words in my mouth and claiming that I said things which I did not say.

thread should be locked, its just the same person coming back with the same disproven arguements at this point.

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

for those legitimately wondering how it works, the above graphic is correct

Yup. Except for the last image ofcourse, because that one is incorrect.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Combining those three rules would imply that:
1. Models who are hidden for 25% by terrain get a cover save.
2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

People are seriously arguing against this? And claiming to know how to read when they do it?

Ah Dakka, such a source of wisdom...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:

yeah, this is just beating a dead horse, kang seems unwilling or unable to aknowledge that for any amount of a model to be covered by anything, you have to draw LOS from the eyes of the firer to each point on the target, and see if 25% of the target is obscured.

Um, he is literally saying exactly what you just said...

no, he is saying you can choose to draw LOS to the target models HEAD only, so that your "line" of sight goes over intervening models, completely ignoring that from the shooters eyes to the models feet has intervening models, or their gaps, obscuring it.

intervening models specifically grants the obscured cover save to models, even if they are "completely visible", in direct contrast to the other cover rules earlier on the page that put a 25% coverage requirement.

the 25% for intervening models is literally made up, and contradicts the actual rule that they get the save when "completely visible"

easysauce wrote:
no, he is saying you can choose to draw LOS to the target models HEAD only, so that your "line" of sight goes over intervening models, completely ignoring that from the shooters eyes to the models feet has intervening models, or their gaps, obscuring it.

No, I am not saying that?
Again: Don't respond to my posts if you don't take the time to read them.
Most fora consider that spamming or trolling.

intervening models specifically grants the obscured cover save to models, even if they are "completely visible", in direct contrast to the other cover rules earlier on the page that put a 25% coverage requirement.

Except for the part where intervening units give the cover "as if they were behind terrain", which some people seem to forget all the time.

the 25% for intervening models is literally made up, and contradicts the actual rule that they get the save when "completely visible"

1. "As if they were behind terrain."
2. They only get that save when the shots go THROUGH the gap.
And how do we decide whether the shots go through or over the gap? Simply by using the 25% rule.
Does the gap cover 25% of the model? Then we get a 5+ save, even though the model is completely visible.

I agree with Kangodo.

The rule for gaining cover by an intervening unit tells us that it works similarly to terrain. Terrain grants cover if it obscures the target 25% (exceptions: area, forests). If you play the rule the way Kangodo and I have described, the cover rules work consistently, always requiring 25% coverage, except in the area terrain and Forest special cases.

Playing this way also avoids absurd outcomes like two grots 2” apart providing cover to a Riptide, because the gap between them covers his feet, when if those same two grots were directly in front of him they wouldn’t give cover, because they’d only cover… his feet.

I think the counter position is reading “the shot passes through” as “any part of the LOS passes through” the gap, which is an inference, and I think it’s a mistaken one. It smacks of 5th ed hangover to me, when the rules supported granting cover if any tiny part of the body was obscured. The 6th ed rules are not designed to work that way.

The "completely visible" is more specific than "as if they were behind terrain"

Therefore firing through the gape even when "completely visible" affords a cover save, as per the rules.

I'm not disputing "completely visible", as my grot example should make clear.

What I'm disputing is the interpretation some folks are using of when you count as :"firing through the gaps".

I think Kangodo is right.

Kangodo wrote:

easysauce wrote:
no, he is saying you can choose to draw LOS to the target models HEAD only, so that your "line" of sight goes over intervening models, completely ignoring that from the shooters eyes to the models feet has intervening models, or their gaps, obscuring it.

No, I am not saying that?
Again: Don't respond to my posts if you don't take the time to read them.
Most fora consider that spamming or trolling.

intervening models specifically grants the obscured cover save to models, even if they are "completely visible", in direct contrast to the other cover rules earlier on the page that put a 25% coverage requirement.

Except for the part where intervening units give the cover "as if they were behind terrain", which some people seem to forget all the time.

the 25% for intervening models is literally made up, and contradicts the actual rule that they get the save when "completely visible"

1. "As if they were behind terrain."
2. They only get that save when the shots go THROUGH the gap.
And how do we decide whether the shots go through or over the gap? Simply by using the 25% rule.
Does the gap cover 25% of the model? Then we get a 5+ save, even though the model is completely visible.

we are not forgetting the 25% rule, you are adding it into a section of the rules where it does not apply.

you are writing your own rules at this point, the 25% rule has nothing to do with shooting over anything, elevation does,


your premise is that that BRB pg 18

"if a unit is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a thrid unit ... it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather then through it."

means

And how do we decide whether the shots go through or over the gap? Simply by using the 25% rule.
Does the gap cover 25% of the model? Then we get a 5+ save, even though the model is completely visible

you keep cutting off the preamble to "as if it were behind terrain", you are the one ignoring half a rule, which has already GIVEN the 5+ cover save to the target for simply being partially hidden. you do this "as if it were behind terrain" by the very fact of it having a cover save, that does not mean the same thing as "refer to the rules on pg x" to determine IF it gets a cover save"

you are already told to give the save as if it were behind terrain, you are not being told to impose more limitations, nor the 25% limitation found in a different rule.

you keep going on and on about 25% , in a rule which never tells you to take 25% into account,

you assert "as if it were behind terrain" means "refer to the previous paragraphs rules" or "partially" means 25%, instead of meaning what they mean.


I simply assert that BRB pg 18

"if a unit is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a thrid unit ... it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather then through it."

means what it says,


and no titans wont get cover from grots, nor will any other VEHICLE since they are expressly stated as the exception to the rule (pg 74), and need 25% for intervening models

how can the BRB say pg 74

the difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover:
*at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover.

be and exception to anything if you already need 25% for intervening models?

stop imposing the 25% qualifier for intervening TERRAIN onto intervening MODELS, separate rules, with different qualifications

"if a unit is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit ... it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather then through it."

I read "it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain." And "Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer." as going together. That the "as if it were behind terrain" clause is what tells us how we know whether a model is firing through the gaps between models. That is, we use the normal 25% rule to make that determination, with the exception that the empty space between models counts as obscuring. The argument that if ANY part of the model's LOS cone passes between two models in a unit, that necessarily means that the shot is going between, is an inference, and I don't think it's a well-supported one.

Again, this avoids absurd situations like two grots standing one in front of the other, hiding the feet of a Riptide, not giving cover (because they cover far less than 25%), but the same two grots, placed 2" apart somehow now granting cover, because LOS can be drawn between them to those same feet.

And it's also more consistent with the cover rules in general.

Kangodo-You must be able to see the whole model unobscured that is what people refer to when they talk about the arc or cone they are not making things up they are stating that you must be able to see the entire model from head to toe unobscured otherwise the model would be obscured and get cover from the intervening models

 Mannahnin wrote:

"if a unit is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit ... it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather then through it."

I read "it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain." And "Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer." as going together. That the "as if it were behind terrain" clause is what tells us how we know whether a model is firing through the gaps between models. That is, we use the normal 25% rule to make that determination, with the exception that the empty space between models counts as obscuring. The argument that if ANY part of the model's LOS cone passes between two models in a unit, that necessarily means that the shot is going between, is an inference, and I don't think it's a well-supported one.

Again, this avoids absurd situations like two grots standing one in front of the other, hiding the feet of a Riptide, not giving cover (because they cover far less than 25%), but the same two grots, placed 2" apart somehow now granting cover, because LOS can be drawn between them to those same feet.

And it's also more consistent with the cover rules in general.

Having had a look at the paragraph, perhaps it's the other way around? It doesn't say that a target partially obscured by intervening models may be eligible for a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain - it says the target receives a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. This reads to me like they're saying the cover save works the same way as if you're behind terrain - ie. it's just a regular cover save. It doesn't say it's possible that it will get one, it says you do get one. That would resolve the inconsistency by removing the 25% stipulation on the intervening models.

Also, the fluffy part of that section says that the intervening models aren't necessarily stopping the bullets, just spoiling the firer's aim, so the person firing at the Riptide is clearly just distracted by the grots' zany antics.

I do think it's impossible to make the argument in reverse, RAW (eg. 25% of height must be obscured by the intervening unit) because the "as if it was behind terrain" is only applied to the first sentence, not both. There's a definite argument that it's what was intended (and I think it'd be very reasonable to play it that way) but it's not what's written down.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Having had a look at the paragraph, perhaps it's the other way around? It doesn't say that a target partially obscured by intervening models may be eligible for a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain - it says the target receives a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. This reads to me like they're saying the cover save works the same way as if you're behind terrain - ie. it's just a regular cover save.

The way a model receives a cover save if it is behind terrain relies upon the 25% caveat. This is what the word and phrase 'receives' and 'in the same way' mean. Therefore, the same rule applies to the Intervening Models rule. This is how English works.

Seriously, it's like people making "RaW" arguments, even if playing devil's advocate, often have little understanding of how language works.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Having had a look at the paragraph, perhaps it's the other way around? It doesn't say that a target partially obscured by intervening models may be eligible for a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain - it says the target receives a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. This reads to me like they're saying the cover save works the same way as if you're behind terrain - ie. it's just a regular cover save.

The way a model receives a cover save if it is behind terrain relies upon the 25% caveat. This is what the word and phrase 'receives' and 'in the same way' mean. Therefore, the same rule applies to the Intervening Models rule. This is how English works.

Seriously, it's like people making "RaW" arguments, even if playing devil's advocate, often have little understanding of how language works.

What I find odd about your post is that "how English works" is that there is no one way that English works. It's a poorly-defined human language with no central authority - it only exists in our brains. As a matter of fact, if I had written those rules in that way then based on my quoted reading you could be entirely wrong.

I suspect you have mentally placed brackets in a different place to where I did in that reading. I might paraphrase mine as, "the target gets a cover save like it would if it was behind terrain." I am not sure that this is an objectionable reading of an English sentence. I believe it is not.

Kangodo wrote:I have seen at least 50 matches where this houserule of you wasn't used.
Take up some statistics and you'll understand that it is enough.

I did do, enough to know that your sample population is not large enough for you to make the unqualified claim that you did. Especially when I have played in over 20 tournaments, with 30 - 120 people in each one, where the correct rules were used, totally invalidating your claim that "most people" play it that way.

AMusing you call it a houserule when you have made up a rule that states that 25% of the model must be covered despite being told that the model is allowed to be entirely visible. That is the definition of a houserule

Kangodo wrote:What rules did I made up?
And what rules do I need to provide? I am not the person here making up 'arcs' and other bs that is not represented in the BRB or stuff like "through" and "over" a gap which isn't explained either.

Sorry "bs"? Lol.

You wanted to know what "through" a gap meant. I was explaining it to you using language. You keep claiming we cannot know what "through" means, because it isnt in the rulebook, totally ignoring that neither is the word" the", yet we understand what that means

I have shown you what "through" means, using the rules in the rulebook and the English language. The fact you continually ignore that is not my issue. A bit like you keep ignoring what "battle" means.

Kangodo wrote:I have combined the rules from page 18 of the BRB and came to the following logical conclusion:

Ah, so you have made up a rule at the end, hence "come to the following logical conclusion". If you were NOT making up rules, you would be able to point to a page and para explaining your conclusion - but you cannot do so, as you have just admitted

So, when asking others "what rules have I made up" I think you have given yourself the answer, if you would only sit back and look at what you are typing.

Kangodo wrote:1. Models who are hidden for 25% by terrain get a cover save.
2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

3) Is made up out of thin air, and has no rules support as it ignores that the rules state you receive a cover save for firing THROUGH a unit. THROUGH being the bit you are ignoring and pretending NOW has something to do with the 25% rule, when the rules do not require that.

Kangodo wrote:This is not only the most natural and logical thing to do, it also follows all the rules in the BRB.

What, apart from the rule you just admitted you made up? You cannot be "follow[ing] all the rules in the BRB" if you have just made up a rule.

The rules only require that you are firing THROUGH a unit in order to grant a cover save
How do you determine if you are firing THROUGH a unit? You trace a line from the models "eyes" to the target unit. If that intersects [which is now a plane, as elementary maths tells you] the line drawn between models of the intervening unit, you are firing THROUGH that unit

All done using TLOS, and all done without making up any rules.

So, page and paragraph where your Conclusion (point 3) is explicitly stated. Until then the ACTUAL rules apply.

Then take the class again, 50 is more than enough.
But surely you could link me one of those battle reports where for example Stompas claim cover from an Ork Boy?

"that 25% of the model must be covered despite being told that the model is allowed to be entirely visible."
You do know that a model can be covered by a gap, right? That means the gap covers 25% of the model, even though the model is still visible due to a gap being *gosh* AIR!

"You keep claiming we cannot know what "through" means"
That's because nothing in the rules tells us when a shot goes through cover/models/gaps and when it goes over cover/models/gaps.
Except for the 25%-rule, which is the only rule that tells us when a shot goes over something and when it doesn't go over something.
So in order for us to know if the shot actually went over or through the cover/model/gap, we need to use that rule.

And stop accusing me of making up rules!
I have asked one clear question:
How do we know if a shot goes over or through models/gaps?
I have provided the 25%-rule, which exists in the rules and is actually supported by the BRB.
You provide nothing but some babbling about an "arc of sight", which has NO support in the rules.

"You trace a line from the models "eyes" to the target unit. If that intersects [which is now a plane, as elementary maths tells you] the line drawn between models of the intervening unit, you are firing THROUGH that unit"
See? You are doing it again. The rules do not support this.
The rules do not tell you to use a "plane of sight".
The rules tell you to grant a cover save if you are shooting through a gap.

And when do you fire THROUGH a gap?
We could make up some nonsense about "planes of sight" which have no support in the rules unless you would like to quote the rule that speaks about it.
Or we can use the 25%-rule which is clearly described on page 18.

Kangodo wrote:Then take the class again, 50 is more than enough.

Lol. You havent taken formal stats have you? Or any real world applications of such? Such as securitisation of assets, something I HAVE worked on. It depends on your population, and as we have a population in the tens of thousands (ultra conservative estimate), then to adequately extrapolate from a sample the sample has to be more than 50. Also you didnt say if they were the same people (50 games with the same people or 50 different gamers) nor have you defined your CI

Give it up. You made an assertion you cannot back up, and wont admit your error.

Kangodo wrote:But surely you could link me one of those battle reports where for example Stompas claim cover from an Ork Boy?

WEll, that would be foolhardy given vehicles have different rules. Or have you missed that? And it wouldnt be "An" Ork boy, but a pair otherwise you cannot be firing through the gaps. I could explain why but i guess you would complain I was making up rules....

Kangodo wrote:"that 25% of the model must be covered despite being told that the model is allowed to be entirely visible."
You do know that a model can be covered by a gap, right? That means the gap covers 25% of the model, even though the model is still visible due to a gap being *gosh* AIR!

No, it does not say "covered by" a gap, it states "shooting through" a gap. NOticed the difference yet?

Kangodo wrote:"You keep claiming we cannot know what "through" means"
That's because nothing in the rules tells us when a shot goes through cover/models/gaps and when it goes over cover/models/gaps.

TLOS and the English Language. This HAS been explained to you, a number of times

Given you require a definition for every word, please find a definition for "The" and "A" within the 40k rulebook. When you have done so, get back to us. Or you could admit we are allowed to know what certain words mean, and that the meaning of "through", when using True Line of Sight, is damned obvious. We have also tried to, a number of times, explain this in simple elementary terms which you have dismissed as "making up rules", when you have JUST admitted, finally , that that is exactly what you are doing.

We are not making up rules, we are applying the rule "fire through" precisely.

Kangodo wrote:Except for the 25%-rule, which is the only rule that tells us when a shot goes over something and when it doesn't go over something.

Wrong, that rule has no bearing on over or through. IT tells you how much of the model is obscured by a "thing", and NOTHING MORE. Anything else you make up is just that - a made up rule

You are extrapolating wildly, much like your "most of" CLAIM above that has been debunked over and over.

Kangodo wrote:So in order for us to know if the shot actually went over or through the cover/model/gap, we need to use that rule.

No, because you are then a) changing what the rule does and b) making up a requirement that doesnt exist in the rules. 2 things you are making up.

Kangodo wrote:And stop accusing me of making up rules!

It isnt accusation ,you stated as much yourself. You stated you "came to a logical conclusion" that you use the 25% rule despite the rules making no such requirement. That is EXACTLY making up rules.

Kangodo wrote:I have asked one clear question:
How do we know if a shot goes over or through models/gaps?

And the answer has been provided. You choose to dismiss that answer, and make up other rules in their place, but that does not change the real, true actual answer

Kangodo wrote:I have provided the 25%-rule, which exists in the rules and is actually supported by the BRB.

It exists as a rule, but does not apply here, for reasons already discussed. You have changed the meaning of the rule into something else, with no permission to do so.

Kangodo wrote:You provide nothing but some babbling about an "arc of sight", which has NO support in the rules.

Sigh. Yet it applies just the same, because that is what "thruogh" means in a game with true line of sight.

Also, it isnt "babbling" but reasoned arguments, that you continually ignore and berate despite making up rules and assertions. Your continued swearing, insults and aggression over toy soldiers is quite alarming, and is becoming wearing. Frankly I do not believe you are capable of listening to anothers argument, as i have done my best - through the vitriol, swearing and made up rules - to listen to yours.

Kangodo wrote:"You trace a line from the models "eyes" to the target unit. If that intersects [which is now a plane, as elementary maths tells you] the line drawn between models of the intervening unit, you are firing THROUGH that unit"
See? You are doing it again. The rules do not support this.

They do, because they tell you to detemrine if you are firing through. This is an explanation, using elementary language, of how you do precisely that.

You have to do this because "through" is not defined in the rulebook, so you have to use tis tool called "language" to derive the meaning of the words used. In order to explain that meanign in a text only forum you then explain it with more words.

This isnt making up rules, this is explaining the actions required to follow the rules. That you cannot understand the difference is frankly astonishing.

Kangodo wrote:The rules do not tell you to use a "plane of sight".

No, I am explaining, using language, what "through" means.
You have consistently made up a rule (the 25% rule) when the actual rules make no such reference. You cannot provide a page reference to where this rule applies to firing "through", yet still claim you are not making up rules. The dishonesty in that approach is impressive.

The rules tell you to grant a cover save if you are shooting through a gap.

Kangodo wrote:And when do you fire THROUGH a gap?

BY using true line of sight, and getting down and checking. Or do we have to explain what "through" means again? You do understand what that word means, yes?

Kangodo wrote:We could make up some nonsense about "planes of sight" which have no support in the rules unless you would like to quote the rule that speaks about it.
Or we can use the 25%-rule which is clearly described on page 18.

Yes, and which does not apply in this situation, because the actual 25% rule does not say this is how you determine if you are firing "through" the gaps between a unit

I agree it is A rule, however it is not the ACTUAL rule relating to firing through the gaps in models. You have made up a requirement (that models must be 25% covered) which does not exist in the actual, written rules.

THAT is the rule you have made up, and THAT is your argument destroyed, again.

You're on ignore, as frankly rational debate appears impossible.

dial it back a notch or two please gents.

I'm giving up.
You are beyond help of you cannot see that the rule-book does not define firing "through" a gap.

Firing "through" a gap is 100% clear if the target is not bigger than the model.
It gets ambiguous when the target rises above the gap: The question: "Do I fire over or through the gap?" comes to mind.

How do we answer that:
You: Hey, let's use TLOS to make an arc/plane!
Me: Use the 25%-rule.

Again: Your answer is not covered by rules, you are making things up.
Deny it all you want, doesn't change the fact that you are using planes and arcs that the rulebook does not mention.
What the rulebook DOES mention is a 25%-rule. That rule can be used here.

I am done.
The point is proven.

"You are beyond help of you cannot see that the rule-book does not define firing "through" a gap."

It would really behoove you to read others posts. I have stated the rulebook does NTO define what "through" means. I have, repeatedly, stated that language does

The 25% rule does not apply here, because that requirement is not stipulated in the actual, written rules. That requirement is entirely, 100% made-up out of whole cloth

The poiint is proven - you use "firing through" and nothing more. No 25% "rule", as you are not determining if a model is obscured by a piece of terrain.

"You're on ignore, as frankly rational debate appears impossible."

But we don't need language to explain stuff that can be covered by rules.
We have three rules.
This is my interpretation of these rules.
You disagree.
Now be done with it?

Except it is not covered by rules.

There is no requirement to be "covered" 25% by the models creating the gap; that rule is 100% absent.

As such you must simply use the language given to parse the rules

It is not simple disagreement, it is pointing out you have made up a requirement that does not exist. You fail to admit you have done so, DESPITE saying you have "come to a logical conclusion" - a statement *requiring8 you to have made up a rule, otherwise it is not a "logical conclusion", it is just "the rules" and you are UNABLE to provide the rule *stating* that a requirement to be "firing through" is that the model must be covered 25%

As you cannot provide a rule listing your requirement applies, your requirement does not apply. I It is incredible you are unable to see this.

So you fall back on language, which in a game with TLOS perfectly, 100% adequately defines what "firing through" and "firing over" means. It literally, 100% means "does your shot pass through the gap?" and you havea 100% reliable method - TLOS - to determine that.

I'm done with this argument, as you cannot prove yoru case, whereas I have proven mine.

Seems we're done then.