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.

if a vehicle dies and becomes a wreck, it continues to block LOS as per its profile.

it doesn't become area terrain though.

so my question is, if you can see the enemy over a dead vehicle, you can shoot them, right? do they get a cover save? they're not IN terrain but you're shooting past it?

 

the reason i ask is i'm pondering taking a piranha in a tau army. if the wreck blocks LOS entirely, then it would be worth using because i could get it killed to provide cover to JSJ around.

i think though more likely is that you can see over the wreck (because crisis suits are taller than a piranha when its off its stand) but the wreck provides them with a cover save. is this correct?

Two words: Lift kit.

huh?

Put a lift kit on your pirahna. A six inch high raised-bed pirahna ought to give you lots of cover

http://www.rockymountainsusp.com/toyota4_StAx.htm

If you could draw LOS over it if it was a tank, then you can as a wreck.

 

lol that sure is fruity
without using 'modeling for the advantage' though.. ?

Posted By Spooky on 06/06/2006 10:18 AM
lol that sure is fruity
without using 'modeling for the advantage' though.. ?

It only works if you are a slow and ignore size levels.

Size levels are only relevant for close combat and area terrain.

Except Size Level 3 models always block LOS. See if you actually go back and read page seven before page 20, and note that literal height doesn't matter, then read the part where most models are size level 2 and don't block LOS, then you will realize when you get to page 20 and they say that size levels only matter for close combat, that is for most models because most models are size level 2 and don't block LOS. Then note that there is also the exception for vehicles and montrous creatures (size level 3) that they always block LOS. Of course this is only possible if you read more than one page at a time which is not permitted in Dakkaland.

Of course you probably read the line "hills and walls are what you see is what you get and size levels matter in area terrain" as the inches tall the hill is as what matters, instead of realizing what you see is what you get means SOLID OBJECT, which is why area terrain can't be WYSIWYG because it can't be a SOLID OBJECT as it would disrupt combat to have a thick forest, and instead you put some easily get aroundable markers that define the terrain, but note that even though you might be able to see a model 7 inches in the forest you aren't drawing LOS because it is area terrain, which isn't a SOLID OBJECT, which can be modelled WYSIWYG.

The Dakka decision to take wordings a little too literally is why they think modelling matters. The only modelling that matters is base/hull size on the 2D board, anything else is size levels.

Of course I worded my first response as "if you can normally see over a vehicle" meaning that if played the size level way, the correct way, then you couldn't but if you played the stupid Dakka way then you could. See I answered correctly both ways.

Posted by snooggums on 06/06/2006 11:42 AM
Except Size Level 3 models always block LOS.

Yes, the model does block line of sight. Where do the rules say that the empty air above and around the model block line of sight? They don't. The model is only the actual, physical game piece.

Posted by snooggums on 06/06/2006 11:42 AM
The Dakka decision to take wordings a little too literally is why they think modelling matters. The only modelling that matters is base/hull size on the 2D board, anything else is size levels.

Sorry, but the game for the most part is clearly three dimensional, not two dimensional as you seem to think.  I'll keep to Dakka's literal interpretation of the rules versus your imaginary rules.

You're better off just ignoring Snoogums when he talks about this.  He won't relent, no matter how many people point him to the appropriate areas in the rulebook.

spooky> RE: Do vehicle wrecks provide a cover save for shooting over/past them?

Yes, they do, the simple answer. they are listed in the terrain section as a 4+ cover save so if you are behind a wreck or in/on one you get a 4+ cover save.

Unfortunately it is hard to watch the magic cylinder debate again, where size level 3 blcoks all LOS up to an infinite height etc. when the periodic swirl on this issue has already divided into 2 camps, the wrong one and the right one. The absurd notion of size levels deciding LOS has a limited scope in CC and doesn't apply to vehicles, wrecks or otherwise. It's sad to see obstinate people beat the dead horse and invent rules:

snooggums> only modelling that matters is base/hull size on the 2D board

snooggums> "if you can normally see over a vehicle" meaning that if played the size level way, the correct way, then you couldn't but if you played the stupid Dakka way then you could.

snooggums> only possible if you read more than one page at a time which is not permitted in Dakkaland.

These are all plain wrong, have been addressed before and are rather tired. Ghaz is correct.  To easily break all the Size 3 vehicle issues, take a rhino in front of a landraider and explain how it blocks LOS to the LR as a target, they are both level 3 right? Wrong, the language in the rules to draw los over and past such models and to draw LOS from weapon mounts clearly indicates that the size 3 absurdity is a complete fabrication and playing that way any regular player will realize the ridiculousness of it as soon as landraiders hide behind little rhinos and Defilers with exposed parts are not in LOS behind hillsm, rhinos, dreadnoughts or whatever.

snooggums> The Dakka decision to take wordings a little too literally is why they think modelling matters.

 Actually the Dakka decision is to play by what the rules are not what we'd like them to be. The only players who really want the infinite cylinder to be the rules are the ones who want to cheat and hide things when they couldnt, like DE Raider players and folks hiding artillery. But its just not supported in the rules.

(This really doesn't have anything to do with vehicle cover saves does it? In fact, if the magic cylinder rule applied no one could get a cover save from a vehicle because its magic cylinder would either block LOS or not in a 2D sense right? Yea.)

Gah! Not the Magic Cylinder? debate again....ugh I can hear the sound of the warp toilet flushing as we speak.... Capt K

Can't we just ban people like this? Just the ones who habitually refuse to read the rules. This is Russ' private website. There is no God but Russ, and Yak is his prophet.

Alternatively, in the words of Billy Bob Thornton in the (terribly remade) Bad News Bears: This isn't a democracy: this is a dictatorship! And I'm Hitler!

Can't we just ban people like this?

Isn't that kinda harsh? I have seen many a rules debate where the majority was wrong. The sad fact is a lot of rules are left for us to decifer, the sheer amount of rules that have been written for this game system, plus the fact, that it could be years before an army is updated under the latest revision leave a lot of grey areas that must be worked out by players. Added on to the fact that FAQ updates are few and far between.

PG 25 of the main rule book dictates how to determine if a model gets a cover save.

 prior> Can't we just ban people like this? (Snoogums)

OGGleep> Isn't that kinda harsh?

Yes OGGleep it is to harsh, I dont think we should Ban Smoogums either.  I second your restraint.  There can be no healthy discourse without controversy. 

I can appreciate the opinions that regular readers have over issues that were supposedly put to rest that resurface, but that shouldn't limit reasonable freedom of expression.  While I may take a strong contrary stand, or be in a majority, just because I don't agree with snoogums doesnt mean I dont like him (or want him banned etc).  It's the basis of freedom.

Spooky, to answer the original ?

I believe the language in the rule book for vehicle cover uses "on or around" for getting a save, but I think its in the rulebook, so your concept of hiding in a wrecked fish ought to work out fine.  I have seen the same situation with waveserpents and rhinos.  I think it's a staple of solid play to make use of the cover your destroyed transorts provide.  Good luck.

(It's always been odd in V4 that skimmers dont block LOS at all until they explode, isn't that odd? So you have to shoot them down in reverse order sometimes, or the ones in the back may get hull down, but they're probably moving anyway.)

so my question is, if you can see the enemy over a dead vehicle, you can shoot them, right? do they get a cover save? they're not IN terrain but you're shooting past it?

You get a cover save whenever your LOS is partially obscured. The models don't need to be physically in the terrain, nor does it need to be area terrain. It simply has to be in the way.

Posted By Augustus on 06/06/2006 2:40 PM

Spooky, to answer the original ?

I believe the language in the rule book for vehicle cover uses "on or around" for getting a save, but I think its in the rulebook, so your concept of hiding in a wrecked fish ought to work out fine.  I have seen the same situation with waveserpents and rhinos.  I think it's a staple of solid play to make use of the cover your destroyed transorts provide.  Good luck.

(It's always been odd in V4 that skimmers dont block LOS at all until they explode, isn't that odd? So you have to shoot them down in reverse order sometimes, or the ones in the back may get hull down, but they're probably moving anyway.)

The crater left by an exploding vehicle leaves an area of rough terrain to slow movement, but does not list cover being privided. There's no save listed like a wreck would have. Unless you mean they don't block LOS until they are destroyed, which would be untrue since immobilized skimmers also block LOS. Unless they forgot to add that in, maybe I'm assuming in this case.

My magic cylinder is full of magic soup.

the only debate worse than this one is the "does Siren affect Grey Knights"

ok trying to avoid magic cylinder (sorry) basically, a small tank doesn't block LOS to a taller tank behind it (although it probably makes it Obscured)

i wasnt trying to run firewarriors onto their dead fish for a cover save, i was wondering if its worth taking a piranha so that i can provide a cover save for my crisis when it dies, and they're not IN its wreck they are merely behind it.

if yes, then its probably worth getting it killed to make convient terrain for them. if no, i'll drop it from the list. it looks like the answer is 'yes' so far, with a 4+ save which is nice

I can't remember the page numbers but basically

1. LOS is normally done using "model's eye view."
2. Area terrain and ongoing brawls use the Level 1/2/3 rules but measure to the top of the tallest model involved. (See also the 6 inch rule for area terrain.)
3. Vehicles and vehicle wrecks both offer cover saves for models on or behind them.
4. A crashed vehicle isn't area terrain, it's an object with a defined outline.

Therefore a crisis suit can get a cover save by standing behind a crashed Piranha.

I would model a crashed Piranha with one wing buried partly in an impact crater, and the fuselage and other wing sticking nearly vertically, to maximise the amount of cover you can get for your suit.

like i said before, i'm not going to use modeling to my advantage, because i'm not a cock.

but thanks for the rules answer

Being a naive seven year old, I assume you meant you aren't a cook, as they use modelling to their advantage to boost presentation scores when their dishes actually taste poorly. I mean, what other word could you have meant?

- Oaka

No, a cock as in a male chicken. They are very careful about preening their feathers in order to attract hens. Hence using modelling to their advantage.

Andrew.

(PS First post, they only get better from here...)

I can appreciate the opinions that regular readers have over issues that were supposedly put to rest that resurface, but that shouldn't limit reasonable freedom of expression.

For the last time, this is the board of the Russ God, and he can allow as much or as little freedom of speech as he desires!

Seriously though, I'm all for tolerance, but when someone has been proven wrong so many times when the evidence, is in fact, "Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal!", it starts to get to me.

But, what if the snasberries do actually taste like snasberries? Then, you'd feel pretty silly for banning him wouldn't you? Wouldn't you!? Answer ME!!

Oh man, sorry about that. Sometimes I just get so afraid though. Afraid of losing you. How does one spell "snasberries" anyways? Sounds like a ripe topic for YMDC aye?

On the magic cylinder front: I believe myself to be a magic cylinder player, but I don't believe the size categories are used. I believe a profile of the model is used to a width of the base. In other words, I don't think you can fire through a sentinel's legs, but you can definately fire over the cab of a sentinel if your weapon mount or target is high enough. Whetever. On the topic at hand I don't see how the downed Pirrahnas WOULDN'T provide cover. The rulebook seems to pretty much spell it out that firing at units on top of or behind the wrecks get the cover save.

I don't have a dog in this hunt but frankly-how do you know someone has been proven wrong?

You're under a false impression (that anything has been proven) of a potentially false impression (that he's wrong).  Unless and until Yakface is properly elected GW Rules God or seizes the throne (carpe pizza!) there is no final arbiter and we are all just blowing smoke at each other.

 

But the Snozzberries do taste like Snozzberries. He's making an invalid conclusion, by the very nature of his argument.

EDIT: In retrospect, perhaps the Snozzberries do not taste like Snozzberries.  But he's still wrong.