Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Simple question.

Does the IG Tanks get a cover save from standing behind IG troops?

Because im unsure if it counts as covering 50% of the vehickle.

Kind of depends on the line of sight of the firing unit. Depending on the distance between the firer, the tank, and the intervening unit, yes and no. Plus, the guard have to be carefully arranged to provide cover.

akkados wrote:
Simple question.

Does the IG Tanks get a cover save from standing behind IG troops?

Because im unsure if it counts as covering 50% of the vehickle.

If you're unsure than look and estimate. Can it be done? probably

Why would it not be possible? Since IG troop models block LoS as normal.

It would all determine on the position of the firing models and the position of the troops and if they actually cover 50% or more of the tank.

Only you can answer that question.

a lot depends, normally I would argue that IG aren't tall enough to obscure enough of the tank (which is quite a big model), but there is an infinite number of things that could happen where they would grant a cover save to the tank.

Not intirely the answer im looking for. In my opinion is the guards are abit too small if you count the turret of the tank.

Most IG players play them as being able to grant cover save anyways?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If where taking line of sight into account, then im asking on normal strait line and not on an elevated ground.

Are the dudes at least half as tall as the tank (And placed in rows so you can't see between them)? If so, yes. Otherwise, no.

I would say yes. But, this is incredibly situational. You need to check it yourself when the problem arises for LOS questions. Without pictures or more information, we really can't help.

-cgmckenzie

They would have to be pretty thick and deep to block LOS to the lower half...

I see people thinking the intervening units rules allows the space between the guard to count as blocking LOS to tanks and it doesn't. So you would have to be packed together pretty thick to block the LOS.

akkados wrote:If where taking line of sight into account, then im asking on normal strait line and not on an elevated ground.

You pretty much have to take LOS into account, because that's how the cover rules work.

But it's still not something that people on a forum can give you a direct answer to. It depends entirely on the position of the units in question, and the position and size of the firing unit.

The only way to answer this question is to have a look when it actually comes up on the table and see whether half the tank is covered from the point of view of the firing models.

It's not just about whether the blocking unit is half the size of the tank or not, because that can vary depending on that point of view. For example, a unit that blocks 50% of the tank from the point of view of, say, a grot unit might not block 50% from the point of view of a Nob unit. Or a Wraithlord. And the unit that blocks 50% of the tank from this firing unit might not do so from that unit that's a little further to the left.

It's not a simple 'yes or no' question. You need to look at what's actually on the table.

insaniak wrote:

akkados wrote:If where taking line of sight into account, then im asking on normal strait line and not on an elevated ground.

You pretty much have to take LOS into account, because that's how the cover rules work.

But it's still not something that people on a forum can give you a direct answer to. It depends entirely on the position of the units in question, and the position and size of the firing unit.

The only way to answer this question is to have a look when it actually comes up on the table and see whether half the tank is covered from the point of view of the firing models.

It's not just about whether the blocking unit is half the size of the tank or not, because that can vary depending on that point of view. For example, a unit that blocks 50% of the tank from the point of view of, say, a grot unit might not block 50% from the point of view of a Nob unit. Or a Wraithlord. And the unit that blocks 50% of the tank from this firing unit might not do so from that unit that's a little further to the left.

It's not a simple 'yes or no' question. You need to look at what's actually on the table.

I see what you mean. I was only thinking about standard troops like ork boys or space marines, but ofcouse a wraithlord has no trouble I would think. The matter is, does a standard imperial guard cover enough of tank in hieght to even count it as having a cover save.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please no comments about paint job, because there is none. Well only just started on yarrick hehe.

In that picture, 50% of the tank is not obscured, so there is no cover.

If you had the guardsmen in several staggered ranks so that they actually blocked LOS to the tank, it might be a different story.

Sadly I agree too. Pg 60 of the BRB says as long as they can see the hull or turret they can fire at the tank. If you put anything taller than a guardsmen in front of the tank you'll probably give cover to what your hull weapon is shooting at.

Some things come to mind if you really want to get a cover save:

Get two punishers in a squad. Have one pop smoke one turn, then have the other pop smoke on another turn. Since 50% of the squad is in cover they should both get it. This is kinda cheesy.

Again get two tanks in a squad, have one in a hull down position and have the other out front (as much as 4" would get you anyway) shooting. Give them camo netting and they should be very annoying all game. (These would have to be longer range tanks as they won't be moving.)

I have not tried either of these so I don't know how they would fair in pratice, but in theory it sounds good.

If they were staggered I feel it would possibly be 50% as it is, it's maybe 25-30%

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:If they were staggered I feel it would possibly be 50% as it is, it's maybe 25-30%

This.

Squadrons of vehicles do not grant cover to each other, so the second option is not allowed, portugus. The alternating smoke is allowed though.

The second method he mentioned isn't granting cover from the squadron. He said place one tank in cover(the hull down position) and have the other tank in the open to shoot. Perfectly legal but a bit expensive for something my KFF does just as well.

-cgmckenzie

Very true. 150+ points for a 3-4+ save is a bit much. As of now I use a chimera with a PCS in there to just sit in front of my manticore if buildings or cover are not in my deployment.

Like cgmckenzie said I'm not saying one tank in a squad will grant cover to another tank in the same squad by sitting in front of it. Just one tank is hull down in a building getting cover (and most likely not having line of sight to anything while the other is on the other side of the wall shooting).

just giving ideas in case he wanted to try any of them.

Im bored, so i made this.. Might help anyone who is wondering.
Basically, 50% of the tank is not covered, so the LRBT does not get a cover save.

In that specific example, yes.

Again, though, it depends entirely on the POV of the firer. From a lower down POV, the LR potentially would get the cover save.

since this is somewhat close to what i was going to ask... ill post it here. (apologies for hijacking thread! ill repost in a new topic if required)

a situation came up the other day in an apocalypse game, where i had a raider behind a wall section. a unit of orc lootas wanted to shoot it, but there was a orc allied falcon between them, and numerous other ifantry. plus, the building etc meant he was only really able to see the top 20% or so of the raiders sail and the drivers head. (we used the GW lazer pointer to determine). since im a sport, i said he could have the shots, but i wanted a 3+ cover save. the normal group i play with has somehow adopted the "if a vehicle is super crazy obscured you can "cry for a 3+". since the opposing orc player had not heard of this rule, he was arguing cover is cover - its only 4+ and thats it. he either has a non cover shot, a cover shot at 4+ or no shot. in the end a third party ruled i could have the 3+ and he ended up missing his shots or failing to pen anyway, so it didnt matter, but since this has clearly caused a problem when our group plays outside our normal enviroment, im wondering on the rules regarding this.

He wouldnt be able too shoot at all. Since he could not draw line of sight to any part of the hull. (sails aint the hull)

Bla_Ze wrote:He wouldnt be able too shoot at all. Since he could not draw line of sight to any part of the hull. (sails aint the hull)

Wing/Sail close enough to the same thing for me to consider the raider sail part of it's hull

I agree wings can be a part of the hull, but a sail has never ever been considered a part of its hull.
And the BRB mentions "hull or turret" Ask any sailor if the mast/sails is part of its hull.

An Aethersail would be hull, as it is not a decorative item. The books gives exceptions to what is hull, anything not on that list is hull by definition.

Bla_Ze wrote:I agree wings can be a part of the hull, but a sail has never ever been considered a part of its hull.
And the BRB mentions "hull or turret" Ask any sailor if the mast/sails is part of its hull.

What would a sailor have to do with 40k RAW?

nosferatu1001 wrote:An Aethersail would be hull, as it is not a decorative item. The books gives exceptions to what is hull, anything not on that list is hull by definition.

Agreed

Wait...this again? No it is not hull. The book gives examples of exceptions to what is hull.

Yes, and amongst them it lists decorative items. An Aethersail is not a decorative item - it increases the speed of the vehcle. Same as a shock prow enables ramming and alters the front armour.

If I were to shoot the item in question off the vehicle and it affects the performance beyond weapons capabilities/communications, then it is hull. Claiming otherwise is being foolish. Shooting the sails off would be like shooting the engine block out of a LRBT.

-cgmckenzie

nosferatu1001 wrote:An Aethersail would be hull, as it is not a decorative item. The books gives exceptions to what is hull, anything not on that list is hull by definition.

How about no?
"it must be able to see its hull or turret(ignoring the vehicle's gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.
BRB page 60 "Shooting at vehicles"

Since you mention definition, try looking up hull, anywhere.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:What would a sailor have to do with 40k RAW? .

Because we are talking about a ship, or something alot like a ship, since it has a hull, sails, railings etc.
A sailor would probably have superior knowledge on the matter of defining the diffrent parts of this "ship" correct?

cgmckenzie wrote:
If I were to shoot the item in question off the vehicle and it affects the performance beyond weapons capabilities/communications, then it is hull. Claiming otherwise is being foolish. Shooting the sails off would be like shooting the engine block out of a LRBT.

-cgmckenzie .

See my first point