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.

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?