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.

So I've had a chance to go through the rules and have been surprised at how well done they are. However I think they've been a bit unclear on LOS and cover as it pertains to vehicles and MCs. I think most peoples inititial interpretation will be that Vehicles and MCs get cover saves only via TLOS blockage. There's one part that leads to that conclusion which I'll call the point of confusion. Below are key quotes from the book. I think they are needed to be able to discuss this. There is not enough to fully play the game, as much of the LOS and cover rules are missing.

Basic Cover rule

When any part of the target model’s body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover.

We see here that without any exceptions, models would only get a cover save if LOS to their body is obscured. However the rules follow up with exceptions, two important ones are listed below.

Exceptions

-Inside area terrain: Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from. This represents their increased chance of diving into or behind a piece of covering terrain.

-Firing through units or area terrain: If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or 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 area terrain or unit rather than through it.

Vehicles

At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is said to be obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a squad is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 50% hidden from the majority of the firing models (do not count models that cannot hurt the vehicle). Just like with units of several models, if you’re not sure whether the vehicle is 50% in cover or not, simply modify its save by –1.

So the gist of this rule is much the same of the Basic cover rule above, only you need 50% of the facing to be hidden to count as obscured. This doesn't really state whether the exceptions apply or not. There another paragraph below this one that attempts to do so, but very poorly.

Point of confusion

Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence.

OK, so when I first read this, I thought ok, area terrain doesn't grant cover to MCs and vehicles. But is that what it says? Could it be saying that 50% of the facing must be in area terrain or between two elements of area terrain to count as obscured? Recall that the exception for area terrain states that models are in cover if they are partially in area terrain regardless of direction. This could just be clarifying how the exception works with vehicles and not that they never get it, although the second sentence above makes that interpretation shakey at best.

Also, does this really address how the second exemption above works with vehicles? Are vehicles 'inside area terrain' if they are between two elements of area terrain or models? I'm thinking perhaps this second exemption would apply to vehicles by RAW.

There's another confusing bit of the picture.

Monsterous Creatures

In addition, for a monstrous creature to be in cover, at least 50% of its body (as defined on
page 16) has to be in cover from the point of view of the majority of the firing models. Also, standing in area terrain does not automatically confer a cover save to monstrous creatures – the 50% rule takes precedence. Cover for them works exactly as for vehicles (see page 62). As usual, if you cannot clearly tell if 50% of the model’s body is covered, modify its cover save by –1.

Uggh. So cover works for MC exacly like vehicles? Didn't know MCs had a facing :p Putting aside that oddity there's another statement that seems odd, the statement 'standing in area terrain does not automatically confer a cover save to monstrous creatures'. Why word it that way if MCs can never get cover saves from being in area terrain. The way that is worded implies they can get a cover save, perhaps via the 50% rule. It isn't until you read the 50% rule itself that it doesn't seem possible to get a cover save from area terrain.

Also, the MC section is worded a bit different then vehicles, it states 50% of the MC has to be in cover, not that 50% of it has to be hidden or obscured. That is a big difference because the exceptions state other ways to be 'in cover'. I think this section is what got me really thinking about how the rules work for vehilces and MCs cause it seems to muddle it a bit.

I don't really have any conclusion to give, I'm still processing and considering. Still thought it was worth disucussing.

To me, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, for vehicles and MC's, the only way they get cover saves with terrain is "at least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by... terrain or models from the point of view of the firer...". Seems pretty clear to me. Half of the model needs to be physically out of sight, so being between two area terrain elements won't do a damn thing unless those elements actually block LOS of 50% of the vehicle or MC.

The MC thing is a bit tricky. The key phrase is "Cover for them works exactly as for vehicles". This means in order to gain the cover save, 50% of their body, as defined on pg 16, must be "... terrain or models from the point of view of the firer..." (from vehicles cover rules).

Half of the model needs to be physically out of sight, so being between two area terrain elements won't do a damn thing unless those elements actually block LOS of 50% of the vehicle or MC.

Except there's exceptions to how cover is determined. It would be like saying the general rule--

When any part of the target model’s body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover.

--means non-vehicle models can't take cover unless part of it is obscured. However there's exceptions to the general rule, that apply to 'models'. The only exepction that is disallowed for vehicles is for being "inside area terrain" and even that seems shakey at best. The other exceptions are not disallowed, at least as far as I can tell.

pg 62. "Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry". So, the exceptions have no bearing on Vehicles unless it meets the criteria on pg 62, which the most important point is, "At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden... (by terrain or models) to claim to be in cover". I'm truly not understanding what is hard to see. Yes, a model needs to be obscured to gain a cover save, and for non vehicles and mc's, that means any part of the body as defined on pg 16, needs to be obscured. However, for MC's and Vehicles, pg 62 defines what it means to be "obscure", and that means at least 50% of the model must not be able to be physically seen by the firer.

As far as the area terrain cover save thing, its only saying that being in area terrain doesn't automatically convey a cover save like everyone else, that the 50% rule, which is quoted above, must be met, which is 50% of the model must still be physically out of line of sight by terrain or intervening models. Again, its just reiterating the fact that you can't claim a cover save under any other instances normally.

Yes, the exceptions uses the general term "models", but only pertains to models which are able to even use the rule as it is written, and pg 62 clearly shows that vehicles and mc's cant, so those exceptions should be ignored in the case of vehicles and mc's unless they result in 50% or more of the target vehicle or mc's being hidden. Sorry for being so repetitive, but cleary you can see how everything goes back to that definition of "obscure" for vehicles on pg 62 and the only way they are able to claim cover.

Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry

How does that exclude them from the exceptions? It is only an opening sentence for the 50% rule, which shows that vehicle cover works a bit different then the general cover rule (any part obscured vs 50% obscured).

The exceptions are not categorized only for infantry, so that sentence cannot be used to disallow the use of the exceptions. The ONLY exception that is disallowed by name for vehicle is "inside area terrain". Look at the exceptions: only one has that as part of its title (just noticed that actually).

I understand your POV and figure it may very well be GWs intent for it to play that way but I feel it is not clear. I will be discussing this with opponents and playing how they feel it should be played until GW FAQs it.

Deleted a huge explanation to revise as the following.

I'll grant that the vehicle cover rules don't just ignore the Exceptions listed on pg 22, but they only apply once the conditions listed on pg 62 are met. The main of which is 50% of the vehicle must been actually out of LOS.

These are the main points that must be kept in mind at all times when dealing with MC's and Vehicles and cover saves.

"At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover."

"If a squad is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 50% hidden from the majority of the firing models (do not count models that cannot hurt the vehicle)."

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence."

Exception 1, Own unit. This is irrelevant for vehicles and mc's, unless you're talking about squadrons, in which case pg 64 states that models in squadrons ignore members of their own squadron for LOS purposes.

Exception 2, Inside area terrain. Models would typically be in cover if their bases are at least partially inside area terrain. "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence." Therefore, they must still be 50% out of LOS to gain cover even under area terrain circumstances.

Exception 3. Firing through units or area terrain. If firers fire through gaps of elements of area terrain or gaps in models, target gets cover for that stuff. However, "If a squad is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 50% hidden from the majority of the firing models (do not count models that cannot hurt the vehicle)." Therefore, despite this exception, bottom line, the target vehicle still needs to be 50% hidden and out of LOS from the POV of the firer, not matter where he is firing from.

Exception 4. Firing out of area terrain. If firers shoots from more than 2" inside area terrain, target gets cover. However, "If a squad is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 50% hidden from the majority of the firing models (do not count models that cannot hurt the vehicle)." Therefore, despite this exception, bottom line, the target vehicle still needs to be 50% hidden and out of LOS from the POV of the firer, not matter where he is firing from.

Exception 5. Firing over a barrier. If firer fires over a linear object while in base contact with that object, target gets no cover for that object. This exception doesn't have an relevance to vehicles in normal circumstances.

As you can see, like i said in my previous responses, it all goes back to pg 62. You seem to be finding complication where there is none. No real interpretation is needed because one set of rules is merely complimenting another. Both are in effect, just the one standard negates or supersedes the use of another.

As you can see, like i said in my previous responses, it all goes back to pg 62. You seem to be finding complication where there is none. No real interpretation is needed because one set of rules is merely complimenting another. Both are in effect, just the one standard negates or supersedes the use of another.

My problem with that logic is that you can apply that logic to affect any model. just one example.

Exception 3. Firing through units or area terrain. If firers fire through gaps of elements of area terrain or gaps in models, target gets cover for that stuff. However, "If a squad is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 50% hidden from the majority of the firing models (do not count models that cannot hurt the vehicle)." Therefore, despite this exception, bottom line, the target vehicle still needs to be 50% hidden and out of LOS from the POV of the firer, not matter where he is firing from.

If what you say is true, why wouldn't one apply the same logic elsewhere?

Exception 3. Firing through units or area terrain. If firers fire through gaps of elements of area terrain or gaps in models, target gets cover for that stuff. However, "When any part of the target model’s body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover." Therefore, despite this exception, bottom line, the targets body still needs to be obscured from the point of view of the firer inorder to get a cover save.

That is why I have trouble with your assesment, even if that is the likely intent of the author.

There's only one hitch which has me leaning toward away from this alternate interpretation -- there's a difference between the general cover rule and the rule for vehicles. The 50% rule uses the word 'only' while the general rule does not. With this, I'm fairly comfortable agreeing vehicles do not get cover saves from being between area terrain.

Here's another thing to ponder. If a vehicle is in area terrain and its line of fire travels more then 2" through that terrain, would the target get a cover save? Seems to me, even though the vehicle cannot benefit from an area terrain cover save, they are penalized like any other model for being inside it.

Nothing to ponder in that regard. The target model would get a cover save. Clearly stated in the exceptions. The only point I'm trying to make is when you fire AT a vehicle, you use the rules only pg 62 as the basis to go on.

"At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover."
Meaning, this is the ONLY way vehicles can claim to be in cover when being shot at, barring things like smoke launchers and KFF and the like. What is really so confusing? Its right there. Does it really state any other methods it can claim cover saves? Yes, the exceptions use the word "model", but only in the context and in addition to other rules as required, in which this case, as I have showed in my break down of exception by exception, nearly totally voids the use of them.

I'll end this post by basically saying that it really seems like its completely futile to convince you of what I think is the correct way of perceiving these rules. In any case, hope someone else can shed some light on the subject.

I'll end this post by basically saying that it really seems like its completely futile to convince you of what I think is the correct way of perceiving these rules.

With this, I'm fairly comfortable agreeing vehicles do not get cover saves from being between area terrain.

It helps to read peoples posts...

I did, or I wouldn't have responded. Thought you were referring to the Vehicle being in area terrain again as is described by one of the exceptions. Don't really see what else it seems we are disagreeing on.

I agree with DaBoss, although I totally get where you're coming from winterman.

The first time I read the rules I *wanted* to believe that vehicles and MCs could get cover from just fully standing in or behind area terrain and I think I was trying to find ways to justify that position by reading things in the rules that just weren't there.

I think if you throw out all your past history with 40K rules and and just read what they actually *do* say, I think overall it comes across fairly clearly that for vehicles and MCs you actually have to have 50% of their body physically obscured to get a cover save.

Although I definitely agree with you that this has to go on the list of things that could have been clarified a bit more. Like I wish the page 62 picture of a vehicle taking cover had been done using a piece of area terrain. Such as the vehicle physically behind an actual tree in the area terrain as opposed to the vehicle just being shot through the gaps between tress in some area terrain. That example would have illustrated both the 50% rule and how vehicles interact with area terrain much better than it is currently.


In the end I keep coming back to the fact that in v5, LOS is ultimately determined by LOS, and when it comes to vehicles and monstrous creatures GW has obviously determined that they are big enough models that the few LOS abstractions used for normal models shouldn't apply to them. . .you actually have to get these giant models behind a big enough piece of terrain or other models large enough to physically block them in order to provide them cover.

The first time I read the rules I *wanted* to believe that vehicles and MCs could get cover from just fully standing in or behind area terrain and I think I was trying to find ways to justify that position by reading things in the rules that just weren't there.

Yeah that is probably true of myself as well. I started attacking my own initial interpretation that they didn't get a cover save but the 50% rule is fairly airtight. The word 'only' in the 50% rule being the most important part in my mind, which will help me clear this up with others as I play or run tournaments.

I did, or I wouldn't have responded. Thought you were referring to the Vehicle being in area terrain again as is described by one of the exceptions. Don't really see what else it seems we are disagreeing on.

Yeah I was, which was probably the last bit that seemed scetchy but even that ends up being pretty clear. I apologize if I came off harsh there, I just didn't think at that point you really needed to continue to convince me and really was not here to change opinions anyways. Just here collecting arguments and ways at looking at the rules. It looks like I will be helping to organize a 5ed tournament soon as well as play in one so I want to be well informed.

If you don't have tall but not too tall walls/trees/hills, or other vehicles/MC to stick in front of you...you don't get cover saves as a big unit (my definition).

Small units have alot more leeway.

I didn't suggest sticking Vypers in front of Fire Prisms and vice versa for nothing...skimmers are too tall for most terrain and will NEVER get cover saves without another skimmer providing it.

People will, I hope, grasp that concept in the next two months and really "get" it that the "everyone gets a cover save" really applies to vehicles with smoke launchers for a turn and non-big units ONLY.

Exception granted: Hammerhead with cheezemo gizmo.

Fun question for MC's.

After talking with some locals in my GW who have Godzilla armies, they pointed out that a "normally built" carnifex is hunched over, not "tall".

Using their Ravenors, Warriors, and Zoanthropes, you can very easily block "50% of the model" by using those models.

And those models in turn, can get cover saves from things like Gaunts.

Is this supported by the 5th Ed rules? Or am I missing something?

No that is correct.

Now show me the list that can block LOS to 6 Carnifex that is NOT an all out assault list...and do it for more than 1 turn.

(I don't think you can or would want to, really.)

I have a quick question- If a squad is firing though another squad- does it provide cover for the MC?

Example-

Noisemarines are firing through a squad of Chaos Marines to aim at a carnifex. Does the Fex receive cover?

Is there any situation where the Fex can get cover without being 50% obscured?

The problem with this- is that when the fex fires back at the noise marines- they get the cover save without question- and he doesnt. Rules can't go only one way- it has to work for both players.

Wow Iboshi, you should have just started another thread instead of digging up something a month old, though I can see why you would post it on this particular thread. In short, no, the MC would not get a cover save for being shot at through a unit. As I stated in my posts in this thread, MC follow the same cover save requirements as vehicles, and therefore can ONLY normally receive a cover save by being 50% obscured. This is of course not including any wargear or special items.

Remember, everything is true LOS now, so if those Noise Marines' firing model's eye view could only see 50% or less of the 'Fex because of the models in front of it, then it would receive the cover save. So, lets say unit A is shooting at the 'Fex with a single lascannon, but unit B is in the way, the 'Fex would only get his save if a model in unit B was physically obscuring 50% or more of the true LOS from the firer, like his torso or head being in the way and blocking the sight.

when the fex fires back at the unit that just fired at him over cover- they get a cover save if they want? there is something broken about that in my eyes.

Gargoyles screen MC's wonderfully. It is one of their best uses atm.

when the fex fires back at the unit that just fired at him over cover- they get a cover save if they want? there is something broken about that in my eyes.

Think of it this way. The unit that fired at the fex are smallish man sized models. They can easily find cover amongst the rocks and debri and are harder to see between other mansized units. The fex on the other hand is a large hulking monster. He should not have just as easy a time hiding and using cover as a guardsman.

This type of scenario was possible in 4ed BTW (sit in area terrain, you get cover save -- target unit would not. No one had an issue with that...)

Having played for a bit since posting this I think the 50% obsucrement rule it is a good change that helps balances vehicles versus MCs and MCs versus regular joes (and I play nids too).

Also, an MC could still often times shoot over cover/intervening models, thus denying saves in many instances. Harder to do with the hunchbacked carnifex but still doable.

So just to be extra clear, MCs and intervening units, they do NOT get a cover save unless the intervening models are covering fifty percent or more of the model?

I think everyone is missing one major point:

1) Page 21, Intervening Models

This takes place of the old target priority rules, if you're not shooting at a unit that is in front and are trying to shoot at something behind the front line (that is not a vehicle), it gains a 4+ cover save.

Just look at GW page taking about the new rules:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=600005&pIndex=7&aId=7000009&start=8

Stand behind the little guy
A nice screen of lesser Tyranid critters can effectively protect a unit behind it - this is awesome when it comes to protecting your Synapse creatures - who wouldn't want a 4+ cover save to protect their Hive Tyrant or Tyranid Warriors? Of course, nobody benefits quite so well as the Lictor - they receive a 2+ cover save if they're effectively screened.

2) It's important to note that Intervening models does not state that you need 50% covered and while it gives a "cover save", it is not the same thing as gaining cover from terrain.

For example:

Wraithlord wants to hide behind a building for cover, to get cover yes it will need to be hidden 50%, but if I have a unit of guardians in front and you are choosing to shoot at the Wraithlord instead, then the Wraithlord would get a 4+ cover save.

Page 51, Unit Types states that "Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type, these units follow the same rules as infantry. It then lists Monstrous Ceatures.

3) Vehicles, have there own section on cover and state that Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry, and there for can not use the intervening units rule (so you can't shield tanks with troops).

4) True LOS just means that it is used to determine if you can shoot at someone... but it's obvious from the example of area terrain (page 22) that true LOS does not determine everything.

-Jara

ferrous wrote:So just to be extra clear, MCs and intervening units, they do NOT get a cover save unless the intervening models are covering fifty percent or more of the model?

With the GW example (see link above) mentioning that the MC Hive Tyrant can gain a 4+ intervening save from models in front, along with the intervening models rules saying only:

"If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models, it receives a 4+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

It does not mention needing 50% in any way...

Also reading further on page 51, yes it does outline some specific rules for Monstrous Creatures and cover from terrain/area terrain. I believe it's just stating that when a MC is trying to gain cover from Terrain it does so like a vehicle.

But seeing how prior in this section it states that with the following exceptions (Terrain/Area Terrain Cover is like Vehicles) MC's act as infantry in all other ways, means that they do indeed gain benefit from Intervening Models rule.

-Jara

I would take the posted article as almost fluff as far as rules accuracy is concerned. They are always publishing articles of "tactics" and rules in WD and the website that are obviously wrong.

Also, intervening models provide a cover save, as if you were in cover...so why would the rules for a model being in cover not apply?

This seems like a silly discussion to me.

I don't see any rules that state that vehicles don't benefit from cover granted by infantry blocking LOS.

Are you getting confused by what it says there in the first paragraph of Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets?

Pg. 62 BRB Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets: Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry - their sheer size and bulk mean they can not take advantage of cover as well as infantry and other smaller, more agile troops...

Can be read as : Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry - their sheer size and bulk mean they can not take advantage of cover as easily as infantry and other smaller, more agile troops.

Furthermore in the first bullet point it says that it "needs to be hidded by intervening terrain or models", and makes no effort to define a model as being required to be a MC or vehicle.

Pg. 62 BRB Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets: o At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. it's front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover...

I really don't see what the question is.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:I would take the posted article as almost fluff as far as rules accuracy is concerned. They are always publishing articles of "tactics" and rules in WD and the website that are obviously wrong.

Also, intervening models provide a cover save, as if you were in cover...so why would the rules for a model being in cover not apply?

It really comes down to poor rules wording (GW, what a shock).

"If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models, it receives a 4+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

You're interpreting that the "As if it was behind terrain" as if it implies that it needs 50% cover.

I'm interpreting it as it's just restating that "+4 cover save" is the same that you would gain when being behind cover.

Do you see both sides of the coin now?

I believe if we look at the sentence structure the fact that it just mentions partially hidden means just that. If it had meant 50% of the unit hidden, I think it would have stated it.

Cover from Terrain/Area Terrain does not = Intervening Models. The only similarity is that both give a 4+ save that is classified as "cover" for rules purposes.

-Jara

PS: Also to me, it also makes sense that cover saves from terrain is slightly harder to get, because you gain a cover save while your opponent does not.

In the case of intervening models, if I don't move the ones in front out of the way, when I fire back, you also gain the 4+ cover save so the act of parity weakens the gain.

Surely since you determine cover saves from intervening models from the eye height of a model, it is possible for an MC to receive a cover save from a Gaunt or something if it is being shot at by a Marine, and for the Marine NOT to get a corresponding save if the MC shoots back?

Read P.62 its very clear on how vehicles get cover.

"Pg. 62 BRB Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets: Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry - their sheer size and bulk mean they can not take advantage of cover as well as infantry and other smaller, more agile troops..."

"p.62 At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening terrain MODELS to be in cover"

On P.51 it also gives the 50% rule in regards to monstrous creatures.

And if you thoroughly read p.22 you will see that intervening units are treated exactly as area terrain. (they even share a bullet point)

SO IN CONCLUSION... Intervening units and area terrain are considered the same thing. Therefor the 50% rule REMAINS!!!