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 is an issue that came up during a 5th edition game and my group would like your opinion. The situation was as follows. A space marine was shooting a lascannon at a defiler and the space marine had line of sight. The defiler was standing atop a hill out of range of any other weapons which could have hurt it. However, the marine was more 2" inside area terrain (a ruin), shooting through a space in the wall that had significant window grille or windowpane dividers (the crosses of the windows that keep the individual panes together). It was this last sentence that became a concern. The question is this: Can the defiler claim a cover save?

The debate broke down along the following lines. On the side of the cover save was the following evidence. First, it was pretty tough to tell whether “at least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted” was “hidden by intervening terrain” (p.62), meaning the window grilles of the building. If the model was right up to the window, probably not, but given that it was significantly back, it was pretty hard to see the defiler through the window -- plus getting one’s head inside the building was going to be difficult. Therefore, making a clear ‘obscured’ ruling was impossible. Second, the model was “firing out of area terrain” more than 2" and therefore it should have conferred “a cover save to the target” (p.22). This side argued that, even if the first point was in dispute, the second point should have given the defiler a 4+ cover save automaticaly.

On the other side, there was compelling evidence. First, the window grilles were not that extensive and the vehicle itself was not obscured by the hill. Second, the whole bit about the 2+” inside area terrain bit only applies to infantry models and not to vehicles, given the statement on page 62 which identifies “the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover,” one of which is the 50% rule.

Which do you believe was correct. Or, did we over analyze this? Maybe it was not a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, but a ‘yes, but’, meaning that the defiler should have received a 5+ cover save, given the rule which says “if you’re not sure whether the vehicle is 50% in cover or not, simply modify its save by -1" (p.62).

We would like to hear your thoughts. Oh, and by the way, we never argued over area terrain under 4th edition. We are not enamored with TLOS.

eeeeeeh, About halfway through your first paragraph, +5 cover due to disagreement immediatly popped into mind as the valid solution. That is why that rule is there because True LOS is an imperfect rule that cannot 100% be clear.

True LOS can be simplified like this:
'tip of gun to body of target'

If your Lascannon was up against the wall/window and had stuck the little tip thingie out, it would have been unobstructed with no argument.

Shooting 'through' something (like a door or archway or window) always creates an argument unless you physically stick your model's gun through it.

Of course this is based on a loose sportsmanship interpretation of the rules.

Son_of_Medusa wrote:

On the other side, there was compelling evidence. First, the window grilles were not that extensive and the vehicle itself was not obscured by the hill. Second, the whole bit about the 2+” inside area terrain bit only applies to infantry models and not to vehicles, given the statement on page 62 which identifies “the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover,” one of which is the 50% rule.

This above quote is the correct argument. No cover, unless it's 50% obscured... the 2 inch rule for area terrain does not work when shooting at Vehicles.

Now, if it was close on the 50% rule, I agree with a +5 save, or even a +6 plus (If you're playing a casual game). But in a tourney just call a judge and make him make the call (most of the time a judge with any balls will make a 50% or not 50% ruling, sometimes they declare the +5 indecision rule but either way they should be impartial).

Kap N' Krunch wrote:
This above quote is the correct argument. No cover, unless it's 50% obscured... the 2 inch rule for area terrain does not work when shooting at Vehicles

I'm not trying to disagree with you, but where in the book does is explicitly say that the 2"+ in cover doesn't apply to vehicles? My gaming buddies and I have been mulling this one over for a while and can't find anywhere in the rules that this specific situation is covered, can you direct me to the page reference?

Ok seriously WTF? how did I quote myself in my own post?

This above quote is the correct argument. No cover, unless it's 50% obscured... the 2 inch rule for area terrain does not work when shooting at Vehicles.

I would like to look into this a bit more.

As above, I don't see anything that prevents the 2" rule from working. It is triggered by the shooter, not the target. The book outlines the differences.... it doesn't mention any changes to the 2" rule.

I'm listening to your argument, however IMO the 2 inch rule doesn't work on Monsterours Or Vehicles because they only get cover saves for being 50% hidden.

Now many times the objects within the AT that a model is standing more than 2inches back will be so close to the model that they will block a great deal of LOS.

Once again, if you look from behind the shooting model and can see more than 50% of a monsterous creature of vehicle no cover save is allowed.

Kap N' Krunch wrote:

Once again, if you look from behind the shooting model and can see more than 50% of a monsterous creature of vehicle no cover save is allowed.

That is sometimes very hard to do if the model is in a piece of terrain and using tiny holes in the terrain to justify LOS. What seems less than 50% to one person becomes a quibble point to another. Even without the 2" rule, standing far back from a terrain and trying to get a clean shot through a window of that terrain to not count it as cover is pushing it. Hence the 5+ rule.

Kap, after going back and re-reading p.61. I think you are totally right. The 2" rule will not apply.

Nkelsch, yes, if you can't tell, make it a 5+

nkelsch wrote:If your Lascannon was up against the wall/window and had stuck the little tip thingie out, it would have been unobstructed with no argument.

LOS is drawn from the model's head, not from the barrel of the weapon.

insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:If your Lascannon was up against the wall/window and had stuck the little tip thingie out, it would have been unobstructed with no argument.

LOS is drawn from the model's head, not from the barrel of the weapon.

Is that new for 5th? TLOS has been around in previous editions and it has always been tip of the weapon, especially for vehicles. I don't have my rulebook in front of me but I swore it mentioned something about that.

nkelsch wrote:Is that new for 5th? TLOS has been around in previous editions and it has always been tip of the weapon, especially for vehicles. I don't have my rulebook in front of me but I swore it mentioned something about that.

LOS has always been from the 'model's eye'

Vehicles in 4th edition drew LOS from the weapon mounting.


If LOS was taken from the weapon's muzzle, any model holding their weapon in the air, or pointing at the ground (not to mention in a holster) would be in rather a spot of bother.

p62 Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same was as infantry.

To count as being obscured 50% of the facing must be hidden from view.

The fact that the shooting model is in area terrain makes no difference as seen in point 2:

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

Thus in short, to count as obscured 50% of the model must be physically hidden from view from the majority of the attackers.

Wich meens if the las cannon model could see more than 50% of the defiler it would not count as being obscured and I doubt the area terrain he was in would even cover 5%.

The rule on cover saves for vehicles is being misinterpreted. On p. 21, the BBB gives two reasons for a cover save: (1) partially obscured from the firing model, (2) intervening models.

On p.22, 5 exceptions are listed:
(1) own unit
(2) inside area terrain
(3) firing through units or area terrain
(4) Firing out of area terrain
(5) firing over a barrier

These are the normal rules for cover. On p.62, we find two exceptions from the normal rules as applied to vehicles:
(1) at least 50% of the vehicle must be hidden by intervening terrain or models. [This is an exception to number (3) only of the normal rules.]
(2) vehicles are not obscured by simply being in area terrain [This is an exception to number (2) only of the normal rules.]

All other normal rules apply to vehicles including giving cover saves from shooting through more than 2" of area terrain occupied by the vehicle and receiving a cover save when the vehicle is the target of a unit occupying area terrain and firing through more than 2" of that terrain.

My question about the whole vehicle cover saves thing is if a unit of infantry fires through another unit of infantry(not the same) at say a Land Raider and said squad blocks say 50% of the land raider is it concealed even though you can see through the squad this came up our last game.

JCarter wrote:These are the normal rules for cover. On p.62, we find two exceptions from the normal rules as applied to vehicles:
(1) at least 50% of the vehicle must be hidden by intervening terrain or models. [This is an exception to number (3) only of the normal rules.]

This is not just an exception to (3)... it's a blanket rule that applies to LOS to the vehicle. The vehicle can only claim to be in cover if it is at least 50% obscured by terrain or models from the point of view of the firer.

That quite successfully over-rides your points 2, 3, 4 and 5.

fenrir31 wrote:My question about the whole vehicle cover saves thing is if a unit of infantry fires through another unit of infantry(not the same) at say a Land Raider and said squad blocks say 50% of the land raider is it concealed even though you can see through the squad this came up our last game.

The vehicle gains a cover save if it is at least 50% obscured by intervening models or terrain.

So yes, if the squad in between blocks LOS to at least half of the LR, it's in cover.

Thanks!

if the shooter (whether its a vehicle or model) is more than 2" in and is shooting at a vehicle does the vehicle being shot at get the obscured save?

Someone argued yes because the condition for the 2" cover saves applies to the shooter not the target.

Why is #3 disregarded when it is talking about the shooter not the target? it sats "if a model fires through..." There is no distiction between infantry and vehicles in this case.

The rules for vehicles is very explicit. The *only* way to get the 4+ save is if 50% is obscured.

The person I'm "discussing" it with is claming that the 50% rule doesn't apply because of the rule for shooting out of 2" of cover. What does the 50% rule have to do with the shooter since it's the shooter creating the cover save?

Bahkara wrote:The person I'm "discussing" it with is claming that the 50% rule doesn't apply because of the rule for shooting out of 2" of cover. What does the 50% rule have to do with the shooter since it's the shooter creating the cover save?

The SHOOTER doesn't create the cover save. The cover does.
Cover rules for vehicles state (clearly) that 50% or more must be obscured for the vehicle to get the save. Vehicles do NOT get the "2 inches in" or "between 2 terrain elements" cover saves.


Eric

The rules are unclear on this point and would benefit from clarification by an FAQ.

I don't know how p.62 could be any more clear...

"If a squad is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 50% hidden from the majority of firing models." (emphasis mine)

That is the *only* way it gets a cover save.

I'll try that and see what he say, thanks

coredump wrote:I don't know how p.62 could be any more clear...

"If a squad is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 50% hidden from the majority of firing models." (emphasis mine)

That is the *only* way it gets a cover save.

Because the rules on p.62 are exceptions to the normal cover rules.

Area terrain is an exception to the normal cover rules, and therefore it is not covered by the vehicular rules.

On p.22 it says that any unit viewed through area terrain between the gaps in the trees, counts as being in cover even if it is 100% viewable.

Consequently any vehicle seen through area terrain counts as being in cover.

See also the exception that says that models firing out of area terrain need to be within 2 inches of the edge, not to let the target have a cover save.

This is certainly confusing and debatable, and worthy of being clarified in an FAQ.

Kilkrazy wrote:

coredump wrote:I don't know how p.62 could be any more clear...

"If a squad is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 50% hidden from the majority of firing models." (emphasis mine)

That is the *only* way it gets a cover save.

Because the rules on p.62 are exceptions to the normal cover rules.

Area terrain is an exception to the normal cover rules, and therefore it is not covered by the vehicular rules.

On p.22 it says that any unit viewed through area terrain between the gaps in the trees, counts as being in cover even if it is 100% viewable.

Consequently any vehicle seen through area terrain counts as being in cover.

See also the exception that says that models firing out of area terrain need to be within 2 inches of the edge, not to let the target have a cover save.

This is certainly confusing and debatable, and worthy of being clarified in an FAQ.

Here is where I believe you are wrong Kilkrazy, the rules on page 62 are not exceptions.

There are two separate rules for cover:

1) For infantry, bikes and just about everything.

2) For Vehicles.

The vehicle cover rules are not an exception to the normal cover rules, they are the only rules for vehicles.

See page 51 on Monstrous creatures as it mentions a vehicle cover rules (which MC's use) in that section as well... as a reference to the two different cover systems.

Yet the introduction to the vehicle cover rules says they are an exception to the normal rules.

This is why the issue is clouded. If it was simply and clearly explained, there wouldn't be this confusion, and we wouldn't have this thread.

You are very likely right, however in view of the confusion, a clear decision by FAQ would be helpful.