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.

Does anyone know whether he enemy vehicles can get cover saves from seeker missiles? I meant in the situation that there a terrain and units between the vehicle firing off the missile and the target, but the enemy vehicle isn't it's self obscured right beside a large piece of terrain in anyway. If you look the 5th ed rules at face value and compare to Tau 4th ed codex, it looks like the enemy can get cover saves because the missile is said to be fired from the vehicle in a straight line. This is pretty bs cause 4th ed is written with no vehicle cover save in mind and will render seekers missiles alot more useless this way. Not to mention it won't fit with all the fluff about it's advanced computer guidance system..

I would say because the rules tell you "The missiles do not need a line of sight from the vehicle they are mounted on to the [target]" then you never check Line of sight and thus Line of sight is never blocked meaning no cover saves.

Drunkspleen wrote:I would say because the rules tell you "The missiles do not need a line of sight from the vehicle they are mounted on to the [target]" then you never check Line of sight and thus Line of sight is never blocked meaning no cover saves.

Unless they were in area terrain.

The only reason why it says they travel in a straight line is to see what armor value should be used. The armor value in a straight line to the vehicle is the one used.

Is it covered in the INAT FAQ doc?

5th edition uses true line of sight. Typically, that means that if you can't see what you're shooting at, you can't shoot at it.

The seeker missiles are an exception. Even if you can't see it, you can still shoot at it. However, remember that cover saves apply to true line of sight. Draw an arc of fire from your vehicle to the vehicle or unit that you're firing at. If there is cover between you two, then they will still get a cover save. Seeker missiles don't ignore cover; when weapons ignore cover, it specifically says in their rule that they ignore cover saves; IE, flamers, Fragmentation Airburst Launchers, some artillery...

Dashofpepper wrote:5th edition uses true line of sight. Typically, that means that if you can't see what you're shooting at, you can't shoot at it.

The seeker missiles are an exception. Even if you can't see it, you can still shoot at it. However, remember that cover saves apply to true line of sight. Draw an arc of fire from your vehicle to the vehicle or unit that you're firing at. If there is cover between you two, then they will still get a cover save. Seeker missiles don't ignore cover; when weapons ignore cover, it specifically says in their rule that they ignore cover saves; IE, flamers, Fragmentation Airburst Launchers, some artillery...

Argh! Sounds like another GW screw up making sheeet impotent from 4-5th ed!!! I can't imagine anyone wanting to take this 10 points fire and forget war gear now!!!!

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it covered in the INAT FAQ doc?

+TAU.30K.01 – Q: Can enemy non-vehicle models
utilize a cover save against Seeker Missile wounds?
A: As the weapon does not require line of sight, they may
only claim a cover save if at least half of their models are
actually in terrain and/or touching a piece of intervening
terrain [clarification].

+TAU.30K.02 – Q: Can enemy vehicles utilize a cover
save against Seeker Missile attacks?
A: As the weapon does not require line of sight, they may
only claim a cover save if they have a special rule or wargear
that confers an ‘obscured’ status on them [clarification].

Drunkspleen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it covered in the INAT FAQ doc?

+TAU.30K.01 – Q: Can enemy non-vehicle models
utilize a cover save against Seeker Missile wounds?
A: As the weapon does not require line of sight, they may
only claim a cover save if at least half of their models are
actually in terrain and/or touching a piece of intervening
terrain [clarification].

+TAU.30K.02 – Q: Can enemy vehicles utilize a cover
save against Seeker Missile attacks?
A: As the weapon does not require line of sight, they may
only claim a cover save if they have a special rule or wargear
that confers an ‘obscured’ status on them [clarification].

So I guess the 2nd answer overrids the first one? If thats true I will def continue using my skyray!

The second answer and the first one are both the same. A vehicle counts as obscured if 50% of the side facing you is obstructed from view.

*EDIT* I see what it says now.

INAT doesn't always have rules that fit, and sometimes they even change GW rules so that the game "works better." Keep that in mind if you are quoting it to someone.

If you open your rulebook and read about cover saves for vehicles, they are given when the vehicle is 50% obstructed from view. If I have a vehicle parked behind a building and you fire a shot at me from across the table even though you can't see me...that's ok - seeker missiles don't require you to see me. But if you try telling me that I won't be getting a cover save from it, you can wave INAT in front of me all you like, I'm going to take issue with it.

PS: I'm Tau. =p

Dash has it completely correct. This is another case where INAT has imposed opinion over rules.

Whether you get a cover save or not is soley dependant upon drawing line of sight from the firing model to the targeted unit. This is completely independant from the rules for what you can target, since not all models follow the same targeting rules. They do, however, all follow the same cover save rules.

I am cool with it if he gets cover safe because he is indeed 50% obscured from where my vehicle is firing the seeker via a straight line. But say if his vehicle is in open ground and the seeker missile have to travel through other terrain and and models to get to the vehicle, then I'd be pretty mad if he gets the cover save.

It is a grey area and the same problem affects SMS.

By RAW, the vehicle carrying the seeker missile is not the firing vehicle, therefore its LoS to the target is irrelevant.

OTOH I can see that if a target is in a wood, the missile might hit a branch and explode before reaching the target. (Common sense.)

Counterintuitively, a target which is 100% obscured, for example, by being the other side of a hill, is easier to hit with SMS or Seeker than a target which is 50% obscured by being parked next to a wall.

Attacker ----- HILL ----- ----- ----- Target.

Attacker ----- wall - Target

Yep, those bloody bashtardz at the head office really didn't think of diz sheet when making 5th ed!

Seeker missile & SMS are all funky in that they have thier own internal guidence systems.

A vehicle would need to be inside some form of area terrain which covers it from all sides (or atleast 50% of the tank from all sides) which agrees with the INAT ruling and makes sense. Those missile just go around the buildings and over the hill (Is it a monster? Is it a monst BOOM)

Look at it like this: Is it in cover the the missile 'gets there' & go from there.

Kilkrazy wrote:
By RAW, the vehicle carrying the seeker missile is not the firing vehicle, therefore its LoS to the target is irrelevant.

Where do you figure this? The gun fires from where the gun fires. You draw line of sight from gun to target to determine cover. As far as I know, the only exception to this is indirect fire, which specifically states cover as being figured from the center of the blast/ordinance template. I don't see anything with regards to this Tau weapon that would leave me to believe it gets this exception.

Have you guys ever seen those missiles that fire up and then suddenly drop straight down? That's what I visualize when I see seeker missiles. The rules specifically say they don't require line of sight, so even if the vehicle is right behind a building, totally obscured, the missile would fly over the building and straight down.

However, that being the case, I can totally see the argument for a vehicle in area terrain, such as a forest. Completely possible for a missile to hit a branch. But I don't see that argument when there is a building in the way.

I think some of the problem is people misinterpret the part where the missile is fired in a straight line, as it somehow is a legitimate argument for a cover save. It is not, it is only for determining which side of the vehicle is hit.

i have to agree with what has been said so far, area terrain such as a forest, could easily give a cover, but hiding behind a build, not a chance, up and over, then straight down on the top of the tank(another thing i have noticed is that, GW didn't give a number for top armor, since in all modern day tanks, that is the soft spot, thats why some of the newer AT missles are ment to go and then down, to hit the weak armor, but i have gotten off subject >< srry) and i am glad i spotted this, i am blowing the dust of my tau force and getting ready to use them, so i can see someone there giving me grief about how is tank is in cover blah blah blah, anyways i am curious to see what others have to say, but as far as i know, the hover craft is not really firing the missile, its just a pad for it to take off from, the marker lights guide it home for a nice effect, just like most modern day systems, tag it and let the hell storm begin

The answer is that it's not clear. The rules tell you:
1. Need to use a markerlight.
2. Don't need LOS.
3. Use armor facing the 'launcher'.

No mention of how cover is treated.

if you don't need los, cover is obviously ignored.

cervidal wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
By RAW, the vehicle carrying the seeker missile is not the firing vehicle, therefore its LoS to the target is irrelevant.

Where do you figure this? The gun fires from where the gun fires. You draw line of sight from gun to target to determine cover. As far as I know, the only exception to this is indirect fire, which specifically states cover as being figured from the center of the blast/ordinance template. I don't see anything with regards to this Tau weapon that would leave me to believe it gets this exception.

The codex says (unless I have misremembered it) that the seeker missile is fired independently of the vehicle it is carried and does not count as a weapon fired by that vehicle.

Ergo, LoS from the vehicle is irrelevant.

synchronicity wrote:Have you guys ever seen those missiles that fire up and then suddenly drop straight down? That's what I visualize when I see seeker missiles. The rules specifically say they don't require line of sight, so even if the vehicle is right behind a building, totally obscured, the missile would fly over the building and straight down.

However, that being the case, I can totally see the argument for a vehicle in area terrain, such as a forest. Completely possible for a missile to hit a branch. But I don't see that argument when there is a building in the way.

I think some of the problem is people misinterpret the part where the missile is fired in a straight line, as it somehow is a legitimate argument for a cover save. It is not, it is only for determining which side of the vehicle is hit.

Hell yes, Javelins for the win, used em on COD4. Yep, thats how I picture these missiels as well!

Kilkrazy wrote:

The codex says (unless I have misremembered it) that the seeker missile is fired independently of the vehicle it is carried and does not count as a weapon fired by that vehicle.

Ergo, LoS from the vehicle is irrelevant.

Flawed logic, even if that is the wording.

Fired independantly of the vehicle, specifically in the context of it not counting as a weapon fired by that vehicle, is referring to the gun being able to shoot in circumstances where shooting may be restricted by other weapons. If the vehicle moves X inches (depending on if it's fast or not), then you get to fire one weapon greater than S4; the passage you describe lets the seeker missle circumvent firing restrictions, not line of sight issues.

Acutally if you ignore LOS, you solve LOS issues.

TLOS is used to determine if a cover save exists, if you ignore LOS, then you have no basis for determining a cover save.... except where special rules otherwise state, (area terrain for troops, smoke, kustom force fields, etc...)

cervidal wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The codex says (unless I have misremembered it) that the seeker missile is fired independently of the vehicle it is carried and does not count as a weapon fired by that vehicle.

Ergo, LoS from the vehicle is irrelevant.

Flawed logic, even if that is the wording.

Fired independantly of the vehicle, specifically in the context of it not counting as a weapon fired by that vehicle, is referring to the gun being able to shoot in circumstances where shooting may be restricted by other weapons. If the vehicle moves X inches (depending on if it's fast or not), then you get to fire one weapon greater than S4; the passage you describe lets the seeker missle circumvent firing restrictions, not line of sight issues.

Agreed. As (I and) others have said before if its popped smoke, kff etc then itll get a cover save because its somthing granted to it before any action is taken, likewise a model sitting in area terrain is in cover before you decide to shoot at it.

Seeker missile hit the armor-facing but just do so in a crazy wiggly flight-path avoiding any and all terrain as such missiles are awesome enough to do so - this is unlike barrage weapons which (if i remember correctly) get the extra d6 & pick the highest due to the weaker top armor of vehicles.

You use true line of sight from the figure with the markerlight if it is hindered you get a cover save. But you use the line of sight from the vehicle to see what side the missle hits. Example a firewarrior has a clean los to a rhino's front armor you will get no cover save and then the tau player says that the seeker missle is coming from the hammerhead that is behind the rhino then the missle will hit the rear armor. (I know it is messed up but that is how GW has had it in all of there FAQs for the tau)

wilsmire:

Do you have a source for that? It's not in the 5e FAQ.

personally, I have to go with LOS doesn't matter, so cover doesn't happen.

There's nothing in the current FAQ's about it, so it does not work as wilsmire has said.

So there's no consensus yet?

wilsmire wrote:You use true line of sight from the figure with the markerlight if it is hindered you get a cover save. But you use the line of sight from the vehicle to see what side the missle hits. Example a firewarrior has a clean los to a rhino's front armor you will get no cover save and then the tau player says that the seeker missle is coming from the hammerhead that is behind the rhino then the missle will hit the rear armor. (I know it is messed up but that is how GW has had it in all of there FAQs for the tau)

I don't think you can take cover saves from markerlight hits.

Sorry have not played my Tau in 5th i know in 4th that is how it worked