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.

Can anyone please point me in the direction to clarify the difference in saves of a monstrous creature in cover that would usually give a model a +4 save?

For example, a low wall that covers 50% of a normal model and its unit, +4. Doesn't seem right that a wraithlord or a carnifex would get the same save.

Does it just fall to the 50% or more of the model itself needs to be obscured?

thanks a lot!

Normal models can get cover saves a number of ways (and 50% of the model has nothing to do with standard models).

Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles actually have to have 50% of the model obscured (or the facing in the case of the vehicle).

So let me just confirm this, because it keeps coming up in games I'm playing...

A monstrous creature who is standing in a piece of area terrain with a tree on his left and a tree on his right, but 100% clearly visible to the firing unit to the front, gets no cover save?

Flavius Infernus wrote:So let me just confirm this, because it keeps coming up in games I'm playing...

A monstrous creature who is standing in a piece of area terrain with a tree on his left and a tree on his right, but 100% clearly visible to the firing unit to the front, gets no cover save?

Correct.

Flavius Infernus wrote:So let me just confirm this, because it keeps coming up in games I'm playing...

A monstrous creature who is standing in a piece of area terrain with a tree on his left and a tree on his right, but 100% clearly visible to the firing unit to the front, gets no cover save?

Correct. His body must be 50% obscured by a terrain piece on the area terrain base (like a tree) to actually get cover.

In other words, Monstrous Creatures and vehicles rarely get cover saves in the new game.

I have another question.

A hive tyrant with 3 tyrant guard, 2 or 3 guard are sitting in a piece of area terrain but the hive tyrant is just sitting in the open 100% visible.

Since 50% of the models are in cover and are normal size they get the cover save?

Thr33ifbyair wrote:I have another question.

A hive tyrant with 3 tyrant guard, 2 or 3 guard are sitting in a piece of area terrain but the hive tyrant is just sitting in the open 100% visible.

Since 50% of the models are in cover and are normal size they get the cover save?

Thats a sticky one, and i'm a Tyranid player as well.

Common sense says that the HT would get no cover save, but the TG would, at least as many as are in the cover anyway. I'm still not fully clued up on the 5th edition rules about how the Tyrant guard prevent the HT from getting wounded so I can't really say anything about that, but if the HT is behind the TG which are in cover, then common sense there would dictate to me that the HT also gets a cover save.

Then again, i'm just speculating. If the rules are unclear, just make an agreement that both you and your opponent can agree on.

EDIT>>>After consulting my codex and rules book, see the answer below for something that makes a hecka lot more sense

I would say the wounds could be alocated out to the squad, and any that are placed on the Hive Tyrant would not be allowed to use a cover save. Similar to having artificer armor in a marine squad. You decide what wound is going to get the 2+ save.

I say that the Tyrant gets a cover save. The rules call for UNITS to be assigned cover saves, not MODELS. Since the FAQ states that a Tyrant is considered an upgrade model in the same way a veteran seargant is, what affects the unit affects the Tyrant.

The FAQ tells us that while joined to a unit of Tyrant Guard a Hive Tyrant don't follow the normal rules about MCs but it's not more specific than that.

My guess is what Lordhat says is what's intended.

Lordhat wrote:I say that the Tyrant gets a cover save. The rules call for UNITS to be assigned cover saves, not MODELS. Since the FAQ states that a Tyrant is considered an upgrade model in the same way a veteran seargant is, what affects the unit affects the Tyrant.

Webbe wrote:The FAQ tells us that while joined to a unit of Tyrant Guard a Hive Tyrant don't follow the normal rules about MCs but it's not more specific than that.

My guess is what Lordhat says is what's intended.

True, but the Tyrant Guard are counted as a retinue, you can't have tyrant guard without a tyrant. That means you cannot pick out the Tyrant as a target despite the fact it is an MC, unless the rules of a weapon say you may specifically do so (not sure if there are any), or in the event of a blast weapon.

According to the complex unit rules, at least one wound must be allocated to each model before the rest of the wounds are allocated. Similarly, if there enough wounds caused that would sum to 2 or more wounds in the unit, they must be done thusly, with two wounds on all models in the unit, and third wounds being allocated at the target players discresion (obviously, the smart thing would be to place as many wounds as possible on the tyrant guard in this example.

The whole point of Tyrant guards being to take the wounds from a HT and take them themselves, in battle they should always be infront of the HT.

Therefore, cover saves or not, it'll be the TGs taking the wounds, not the HT.

Kaej wrote:
True, but the Tyrant Guard are counted as a retinue, you can't have tyrant guard without a tyrant. That means you cannot pick out the Tyrant as a target despite the fact it is an MC, unless the rules of a weapon say you may specifically do so (not sure if there are any), or in the event of a blast weapon.

According to the complex unit rules, at least one wound must be allocated to each model before the rest of the wounds are allocated. Similarly, if there enough wounds caused that would sum to 2 or more wounds in the unit, they must be done thusly, with two wounds on all models in the unit, and third wounds being allocated at the target players discresion (obviously, the smart thing would be to place as many wounds as possible on the tyrant guard in this example.

The whole point of Tyrant guards being to take the wounds from a HT and take them themselves, in battle they should always be infront of the HT.

Therefore, cover saves or not, it'll be the TGs taking the wounds, not the HT.

None of what you said changes the fact that by the rules whole units either get a cover save or they do not. There is absolutely no rules in place allowing people to claim that the Hive Tyrant doesn't get a cover save while his Guard do.

The fact is, either at least 50% of the models in the unit are in cover and the *UNIT* gets the cover save or they don't. There is no ambiguity.

It doesn't matter if the Tyrant model isn't in cover anymore then with a normal unit that has one model standing outside of cover. It at least 50% of the models in the unit are in cover then the unit (including the Tyrant) is getting the cover save.

yakface wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:So let me just confirm this, because it keeps coming up in games I'm playing...

A monstrous creature who is standing in a piece of area terrain with a tree on his left and a tree on his right, but 100% clearly visible to the firing unit to the front, gets no cover save?

Correct. His body must be 50% obscured by a terrain piece on the area terrain base (like a tree) to actually get cover.

In other words, Monstrous Creatures and vehicles rarely get cover saves in the new game.

Wait wait wait, if a patch of terrain is "trees" and has one tree on it only, representing the height of the trees then the defiler doesn't get a cover save? This is RAW but help me out, does anyone actually play it in Real World (TM) that way? I mean it physically means you couldn't get the defiler into the trees.

That's how it's played around here (meaning no save for a defiled obstructed by a solitary tree).

Do you not have area terrain any more? How are you supposed to get a tank inot area terrain?
Doesn't this contravene the picture in the book?

I think I just quit 40K.

Yes.
Move it in.
No.

True line of sight baby! (by the way. I dislike "true line of sight".)

Don't quit 40k, just build new terrain. Your base with one tree no longer cuts it.

If there were enough trees to block the view to your tank, there would be enough trees to block the path of your tank. Rule makes sense to me. I plan on eventually building new forests with some cool bonsai trees for reptile and fish tanks from PetSmart. Gona be awhile though since they're not cheap.

Frazzled wrote:
Wait wait wait, if a patch of terrain is "trees" and has one tree on it only, representing the height of the trees then the defiler doesn't get a cover save? This is RAW but help me out, does anyone actually play it in Real World (TM) that way? I mean it physically means you couldn't get the defiler into the trees.

Man, that's the whole point!

The new damage chart makes vehicles tough. When vehicles get cover saves they become even more tough (almost ridiculously so).

At first everyone thought vehicles were going to be unstoppable because of this, but then the realization set in that you actually have to have a big enough piece of cover to physically cover a vehicle in order to get that cover save. And thank god for that because if vehicles could just get cover saves by parking in any area terrain like they used to be it would be a sick world (I know because I play Tau who essentially have that ability and it is sick).

At the Vegas GT everyone of my opponents and I agreed to play forests as area terrain that can be shot through--so units in forest or firing through them got/conferred a 4+ cover save. I know this is contrary to RAW, but we all agreed that 1) since the trees on the base were movable, and thus not likely to remain in place, and 2) the terrain was built in 3rd edition and was meant to represent a forest, it made more sense to play it this way, otherwise, with the exception of the odd ruin, the tables would have been completely open, which likely would have made for some one-sided and boring battles. True LOS breaks down with forests as most people currently have them built.

Brice

BBeale wrote:At the Vegas GT everyone of my opponents and I agreed to play forests as area terrain that can be shot through--so units in forest or firing through them got/conferred a 4+ cover save. I know this is contrary to RAW, but we all agreed that 1) since the trees on the base were movable, and thus not likely to remain in place, and 2) the terrain was built in 3rd edition and was meant to represent a forest, it made more sense to play it this way, otherwise, with the exception of the odd ruin, the tables would have been completely open, which likely would have made for some one-sided and boring battles. True LOS breaks down with forests as most people currently have them built.

Brice

I disagree. Almost all the forest pieces at the GT had at least 3, if not more, trees on them. All of my games we played per the RAW (including the GT proviso to keep the tree models where they were once the game starts) and the clumps of trees themselves do block LOS to a certain degree.

In one game my opponent chose to keep his Land Raider behind a forest because there was enough coverage provided by the trees to block at least 50% of his front facing. Of course it meant one of his weapons was stuck behind a tree, but that was a trade-off he was willing to make.

While I agree that the GT should get at least one more piece of terrain on every table that completely blocks LOS I don't think that house-ruling the forests needs to be done to make a good game.

Yak,

To be clear, it was very casual. For whatever reason it came up every game, and I didn't have a problem with it. We easily could have played without it, but the overwhelming feeling I got was that no one wanted to bicker over tree placement, which I completely understand. I'd like to see them try and trade out the GT scenery that's been in use since 2001 for the new plastic trees--at least then tree placement is no longer a concern.

Brice

I'd just like to retract something and keep my gob shut, Lordhat was spot on about the Tyrant counting as an upgrade character when with a retinue.

Note to self. Ask more questions, talk less trash.

yakface wrote:

Man, that's the whole point!

welcome to my world. GW needs to conduct some sort of public education program to help 4th edition players get a grip (and keep it) on line of sight.

Seems like 1/2 the games I play have dialogue like this:
4th edition player, "so i'm shooting through area terrain--take your cover save."
me: "check los"
4th edition player, "huh?"

4th edition player, "I shoot your unit of orks with my landraider's guns"
me: "check los"
4th edition player, "huh? but friendly units don't block los"

I thought 'area terrain' still blocked LOS if you were behind it - ie the example on page 22 of the 5th ed rulebook, which seems pretty clear that 'true LOS' doesn't apply to area terrain.

Some of our 'forests' are 2-3 movable trees on a board representing the terrain boundaries - is this setup no longer appropriate for 5th ed?

For the purposes of this post, "Infantry" means everything except vehicles and MCs.


Infantry *in* area terrain get the cover save

Infantry *behind* area terrain only get a cover save if they are obscured by the terrain.
NOTE: If you have to look between two elements (trees, columns, stones, etc) of the area terrain to see the infantry model, that 'counts as' obscured.
NOTE: if you have to look over the 'ground' of the terrain (baseboard, etc) but not between two elements, the infantry model has to be *physically* obscured.
(This makes area terrain with only one element, almost useless for units behind it.


Vehicles and MCs *always* have to be physically obscured 50% (vehicles, just 50% of the nearest facing.) There is no change for this rule between wysiwyg terrain and area terrain.

The only thing that blocks LoS is if you actually can't see the model.
Shooting between area terrain elements, or models in a unit, will count as obscuring a (non-vehicle/MC) target.

Forests *are* area terrain that can be shot through. And if you shoot between trees, it confers a cover save.



It is hard to get people to realize that once the trees are placed, they are supposed to stay put, you can no longer just move them around.