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.

I have run into the following misconceptions when it comes to cover saves.... Thoughts on this? Have you guys run across any?

1) Firing over area terrain gives cover.

NOT True.... well not always true. You only receive cover if you are obscured by the terrain, in it, OR between elements of the terrain. See page 22 of the BRB. You can clearly see in the picture here, Marine C, who is behind the cover is not between the trees, which are the elements of the area terrain, but not obscured would NOT receive a cover save.

2) Shooting over a crater (area terrain) gives a cover save.

Not true again. See bottom of page 21. If my LOS is completely not obscured I can shoot over the terrain with out giving a cover save.

I think it was one of the first 5th ed games I played. My opponent had set up in a small set of ruins roughly 8" x 4" with walls about 3" high. A window and one doorway was in the longest wall but his unit was mostly obscured.

The problem came in his shooting phase. At the time, he shot w/ any model w/in 2" of the edge of the ruins. This ended up being about 8 of the 10 models.

Technically, he should have only had about 2 shots since only 2 models could see my unit; 1 from the window and one from the doorway. I haven't seen the situation occur again but it's filed away for future reference.

There are rules for allowing models to shoot through area terrain as long as they are w/in 2" of the edge of the terrain, but true line of sight cannot be ignored. Reading the bullets made this very clear.

I think the rules also say that such a situation where units can fire through solid walls is a-okay if the players agree to it beforehand, with the emphasis being on reaching a decision beforehand about how players want to treat terrain rather than hard and fast rules about how they should treat terrain.

Nurglitch wrote:I think the rules also say that such a situation where units can fire through solid walls is a-okay if the players agree to it beforehand,

The Ruins rules mention discussing with your opponent whether or not you can move through walls, or whether you need an actual doorway to do so.

No mention is made of the LOS rules being any different for ruins as opposed to any other area terrain.



Obviously, you can still agree with your opponent to play it otherwise, but so far as the LOS rules are concerned, a wall is a wall.

Exactly. You would need to draw LOS for each model shooting at the unit behind the wall. So if I were shooting at the unit and every model could see the one model in the window, they could all shoot.

Example

M M M ----M----M M
XXXXXXX---XXXXXX


O O O O O O O

In the situation above, only the O's that could draw LOS to the M in the window can shoot and the M unit WOULD receive a cover save. If reversed, only the one M could should, but since he is the only model shooting, the O's DO NOT receive a cover save

And therein lies the silly part. Only the model that has LoS can shoot out from that window, but I can wound every single model in that unit that's behind the wall. Sure, they get a cover save, but I play 'nids and Orks quite a bit and most of my shooting isn't AP3 so it doesn't really matter. I don't see where the logic in that is (yes, I know, GW and logic don't always mix). If I shoot 20 bullets into that model, does it magically ricochet into all of the other members of the unit? If it's because in theory the models are all moving around within the ruin, so it's possible to hit multiple ones, then it's just as reasonable to say they move out of each other's way and take turns firing from the window.

Gah.

Kirbinator wrote:And therein lies the silly part. Only the model that has LoS can shoot out from that window, but I can wound every single model in that unit that's behind the wall. Sure, they get a cover save, but I play 'nids and Orks quite a bit and most of my shooting isn't AP3 so it doesn't really matter. I don't see where the logic in that is (yes, I know, GW and logic don't always mix). If I shoot 20 bullets into that model, does it magically ricochet into all of the other members of the unit? If it's because in theory the models are all moving around within the ruin, so it's possible to hit multiple ones, then it's just as reasonable to say they move out of each other's way and take turns firing from the window.

Gah.

My first QFT

The other thing that gets me is the OP's first LI may be correct, but it gets complicated by the true LoS rules and wound allocation. Does the majority of the squad see their target? Which guns see him? If the target doesn't get the cover save, the player just allocates two wounds from a low AP weapon on that guy while the only other target in LoS from the squad takes 4 saves from las guns. At some point it just gets easier to say "that guy gets a cover save because I'm not going to check LoS/obscurement ratios for the 40 guardsman with various weapons firing on him."

Kirbinator wrote:And therein lies the silly part. Only the model that has LoS can shoot out from that window, but I can wound every single model in that unit that's behind the wall... If I shoot 20 bullets into that model, does it magically ricochet into all of the other members of the unit?

It's because the shot kills the first guy, and the guy next to him says, "Hey! What happened to Stan?" So, he sticks his head out the window to see where the bullet was shot from.
*ping* The next shot takes him out.
"Hey! Wally just died! How'd that happen" ::sticks head out window::
*freem* (Lascannon shot)
"Holy Jeebus! Did you see what just happened to Eddie? I wonder what weapon incinerated him from the waist up like that"
::peeks out window::
(Rinse. Repeat)

It all makes sense, if you just look at it the right way.


As for moving around to shoot out of the same window... They can't. Poindexter's a glory hog and won't share his firing position with anyone.

Makes sense, really.

Eric

My apologies for de-railing the OP's original intent of sharing cover save misconceptions. Though I'm glad to see there is a consensus about my own situation. There really are lot's of valid points to be made here, I certainly see Kirbinator's view though I'm glad it doesn't work that way any longer. ( It did in 4th if I remember correctly).

Certainly in my situation, going through the terrain pieces w/ my opponent and working out the 'rules' concerning them before the game would have solved the issue. It takes time to do and I am one to get into the game as quickly as possible.

Kirbinator wrote:And therein lies the silly part. Only the model that has LoS can shoot out from that window, but I can wound every single model in that unit that's behind the wall.

Not that silly, really. Most military firearms are perfectly capable of shooting through walls. So if you know where your target is (because you can see at least one model from his unit) you can just concentrate your fire on the surrounding wall.

Shooting out is a little more problematic. You wouldn't normally try to shoot through a wall right in front of your nose, since you have no idea what's on the other side. You would move to somewhere where you can see what's going on before firing.

It also streamlines gameplay in a very necessary way. If we were to use 2nd edition rules for Line of Sight the game would take literally forever.

You wouldn't have to move to an existing hole. Soldiers, with no respect for terrain models, would simply make holes where they wanted them if there were insufficient holes to use. I, however, would take a bad view of anyone who started picking up my terrain modesl and punching holes in them for his soldiers to use. The same applies to doorways; if there isn't one, make a big hole. 4ed firing rules were much more realistic in that way.

JCarter wrote: Soldiers, with no respect for terrain models, would simply make holes where they wanted them if there were insufficient holes to use.

That would really depend on the building itself. I know I'd certainly think twice about just indisciminantly knocking holes in whatever fragile structure is holding up what's left of the roof above me...

The same applies to doorways; if there isn't one, make a big hole. 4ed firing rules were much more realistic in that way.

They do give you that option for movement, which is probably just to account for ruins potentially being a little more difficult to move around in than other area terrain.

I suspect that the lack of a similar rule for shooting is simply to keep things simple. The one rule applies regardless of that the terrain is made of.

insaniak wrote:Not that silly, really. Most military firearms are perfectly capable of shooting through walls. So if you know where your target is (because you can see at least one model from his unit) you can just concentrate your fire on the surrounding wall.

What kind of wall? Most military firearms can't shoot through reinforced concrete or an immobilized tank. An M16 will even loose effectiveness shooting through a rock facade or standard brick.

Shooting out is a little more problematic. You wouldn't normally try to shoot through a wall right in front of your nose, since you have no idea what's on the other side. You would move to somewhere where you can see what's going on before firing.

You absolutely know what's on the other side - the people shooting at you through the "paper thin" walls! If they can accurately kill you without being able to see you then you should be able to do the same. Not to mention that if one of the models behind the wall was hit by a missile launcher or lascannon there would be a huge hole in the wall which everyone could use to see and return fire.

The situation is just silly.

What kind of wall? Most military firearms can't shoot through reinforced concrete or an immobilized tank. An M16 will even loose effectiveness shooting through a rock facade or standard brick.

You are right. So we should only allow shooting 'through' cover against shrubs and shanties. Each Ruin can have a value assigned, and if it isn't high enough you can shoot through it.
Of course, some weapons are more powerful, so they can shoot through buildings.
But some are in between, so you should have to roll to see if you can shoot through.
And if enough powerful guns shoot, it will lower the S of the building, and then other guns can shoot.

Yeah, that will make the *GAME* so much more fun to play.


You have control of the placement of your models, so you are penalized if you put them without LoS at the enemy.
The enemy position is abstracted, can you see the unit or not.

It also stops people from being able to snipe certain models. And it keeps me from sacrificing my Blord so his retinue gets fleet back.

Democratus: http://www.theboxotruth.com/ is a great site for tests about what can be shot through what. You are right that reinforced concrete and tanks stop bullets pretty well, but you might be surprised at how little cinder blocks and cars slow them down.

Plus, we are talking about the 41st millenium! Bolters! Plasma cannons! Lasgu... oh, wait, lasguns are just rifles that shoot lasers instead. Never mind

What kind of wall? Most military firearms can't shoot through reinforced concrete or an immobilized tank. An M16 will even loose effectiveness shooting through a rock facade or standard brick.

The baseline for 40k weaponry is equipment on par with .75 caliber mass reactive rounds capable of fully automatic fire. The 'realism' argument is going to fall far, far short.

sourclams wrote:

What kind of wall? Most military firearms can't shoot through reinforced concrete or an immobilized tank. An M16 will even loose effectiveness shooting through a rock facade or standard brick.

The baseline for 40k weaponry is equipment on par with .75 caliber mass reactive rounds capable of fully automatic fire. The 'realism' argument is going to fall far, far short.

QFT

Its also important to note that when you are rolling for a model with an automatic weapon to shoot, the number of dice arent the same as the number of rounds fired. A single bolter shot is probably at least 3 rounds where as rapid fire is probably half a clip, and I imagine a Assault Cannon would fire at a similar rate as an old german MG-42.

I agree with a number of arguments that have been made for either side of terrain walls with one window. I think many of the points can be argued because there are many debatable issues )how powerful are the weapons because some can fire through most walls, soldiers can make their own holes or fire through holes made by weapons that fired on them, etc). The biggest issue for me is that this is a game that uses models that are stuck in fixed positions on stands that take up a certain amount of space when trying to cram your squad behind a wall or get them into a position to fire out the few windows that many terrain models have. I would prefer if something like - if a unit can see a model behind a wall (such as through the window) then it can fire at the whole unit with cover saves as applicable, but then the model in the window's unit can also fire back at whatever the exposed model sees, still using true LOS to the exposed model. This would allow units using such cover that wanted to fire out to be subject to attack and allow for return fire understanding that the model and terrain piece are fixed in ways that cannot allow for realistic situations. This also allows the system to remain simple and follow true LOS. What do others think?

Democratus wrote: If they can accurately kill you without being able to see you then you should be able to do the same.

They can't accurately kill you... that's why you get a cover save.

But they know roughly where you are, because they can see a model from your unit.
You, on the other hand, can see a big ol' stretch of wall with a few bullet holes in it...

Not to mention that if one of the models behind the wall was hit by a missile launcher or lascannon there would be a huge hole in the wall which everyone could use to see and return fire.

Yeah, it breaks down if you push it far enough. It'sa fluff explanation for an arbitrary and slightly abstract game mechanic that's there primarily (at least in my opinion) for game balance.

Which leaves you with two options: Take the explanation that fits the situation, while keeping in mind that this is a game that will often go for simplicity over realism... or assume that the whole situation is silly and continue to complain about how the game makes no sense.

If you're actually interested in playing the game, one of those options is productive, and one really serves no purpose unless you just like complaining.

insaniak wrote:If you're actually interested in playing the game, one of those options is productive, and one really serves no purpose unless you just like complaining.

That's very true. And it is why my playing has gone from once a week and playing at the FLGS once a month to playing with friends once a month or so. Too many of the rules changes seem arbitrary and half baked. If GW won't be bothered, why should I? They've already got all the money from me they'll get this edition.

Maybe next edition?

The general consensus at my store is that 5e is far more open and fun than 4e. Except for the Eldar players, of course, they think it's stupid that they don't just show up and win anymore.

I would certainly agree with that.

5th isn't perfect by any means. But it's such a vast improvement on 4th, both in gameplay and in the writing of the rules.

I think I only played 6 games in 4th ed total. Absolutely hated it.

sourclams wrote:The general consensus at my store is that 5e is far more open and fun than 4e. Except for the Eldar players, of course, they think it's stupid that they don't just show up and win anymore.

QFT.

sourclams wrote:The general consensus at my store is that 5e is far more open and fun than 4e. Except for the Eldar players, of course, they think it's stupid that they don't just show up and win anymore.

Hah! QFT good sir! Made my morning!

I'm pretty sure we've all seen Full Metal Jacket the scene at the end of the movie with the Sniper is a Perfect example of why they die and if you don't like that.......It's a Game try and explain the Logic behind Wow and trust me i'll ignore you even more. When Games Workshop starts advertising 40k as a Real life Future Military simulator, I'll start worrying about it. Until then if those are the rules play them and don't worry about why.

insaniak wrote:Which leaves you with two options: Take the explanation that fits the situation, while keeping in mind that this is a game that will often go for simplicity over realism... or assume that the whole situation is silly and continue to complain about how the game makes no sense.

If you're actually interested in playing the game, one of those options is productive, and one really serves no purpose unless you just like complaining.

The third option is the one I see taken most often by all the players I've met. Complain and play the game.

I like much of what 5th edition has done and consider it a huge leap forward from 4th. But I will always reserve my right to bitch about games, work, girlfriends, politics, the weather... it's part of the fun!