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.

It has come to my attention that the entire unit must be in area terrain to claim the save. The same thing goes for taking cover behind a unit. This has been made apparent on pg. 22 of the rulebook under Units partially in cover where it states that "[when calculating majority] models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover..."

This means first and foremost that "mutual cover saves" are flat out impossible to achieve, for which I am grateful. BUT, it also means that if the majority is in cover, yet can all be seen then the unit is not considered to be in cover. I realize this is a very rules lawyer-y interpretation and I usually state this clarification before the game is played so my opponent can choose whether or not this will be strictly abided.

Personally I feel as though it should be written this way:

"...models that are completely in cover are considered to be in cover for this purpose"

I believe that the intention was to clarify that models partially in cover did not count as being in cover for the purpose of calculating majority. By re-writing the rule in this manner it both nullifies the chance for "mutual cover saves" and allows units which have the majority of their models in area terrain (visible or not) to claim their cover save. To put this into question form I suppose I should say "Is it correct to interpret this rule to mean that only models that are not visible to the unit firing count towards the portion of the unit in cover when calculating majority?"

WintermuteSwarm wrote: This has been made apparent on pg. 22 of the rulebook under Units partially in cover where it states that "[when calculating majority] models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover..."

You appear to be reading that as 'only models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover...',,, which isn't what it says.

Models that are completely out of sight count as being in cover. That doesn't change the fact that models that are in cover also count as being in cover...

So the answer to:

"Is it correct to interpret this rule to mean that only models that are not visible to the unit firing count towards the portion of the unit in cover when calculating majority?"

...is 'no'

All models in cover count as being in cover when determining the majority. Models that are completely out of sight also count as being in cover.

The clarification about models out of sight is there purely so that people know to count them. Otherwise, people would be trying to work out the majority using just the models that can actually be seen... which would be a pain.



As an added note:

Personally I feel as though it should be written this way:
"...models that are completely in cover are considered to be in cover for this purpose"

This would be meaningless. Models are either in cover, or they're not. So any model in cover is 'completely in cover'...

Hmm, well I guess that makes sense. I was interpreting it as 'only these models'. And yes that would make the last bit meaningless.

And so mutual cover saves are possible? You can certainly assemble two squads together so that they may move one at a time while having models considered to in cover by having the enemy shoot through the gap between the other squad.

In any case I agree, but I'd still like an official ruling as I'm sure others could interpret the rule the same way despite the fact that the word 'only' is omitted.

WintermuteSwarm wrote:And so mutual cover saves are possible?

Yes, of course they are. Awkward to do, and leaves you vulnerable to Blasts, but possible.

Winter-Of topic but is your avatar a picture of you?

If so, cut your hair you look like a chud.

i second that.

I... will resist incrementing that.

Obligatory report for off-topicness.

But... yeah, chud.

Is it cut yet?

He can't respond because he's at the barber shop. I hope...

Or he finally figured out which direction the razor goes on his arms. Either way the hair is gone.

Win.