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.

So you've got a predator say, and a tactical squad standing in front of it. The left pred heavy bolter can probably see like 2-3 guys, same with the right one and the autocannon can see all of them. Now according to the rules the squad is in cover from 2 out of 3 weapons and thus gets cover saves from all the shots. The thing is even at like 12 to 24 inches out the sponsons still have terrible LOS and so would technically grant cover, tac squad is a bad example cos they dont need cover, but what do others think. I usually do each gun seperately but thats a bit of a cop out really, i like to follow the rules..

You follow the rules. No Exceptions.

A thought that this topic brought up - infantry draw LoS from the eyes, not the weapon.

Lascannon marines need to be quite carefully aimed to avoid having their gun grant a cover save!

I can't imagine actually enforcing that though.

Scott-S6 wrote:Since your own unit is ignored for purposes of cover, wouldn't the same extend to parts of the firing model?

If not then lascannon marines will need to be very carefully positioned to avoid giving cover saves (since infantry draw LoS from the eyes, not the weapon)

No, vehicles work differently. The vehicle does block LOS, as per the Arc of Fire Diagrams.

Gwar! wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Since your own unit is ignored for purposes of cover, wouldn't the same extend to parts of the firing model?

If not then lascannon marines will need to be very carefully positioned to avoid giving cover saves (since infantry draw LoS from the eyes, not the weapon)

No, vehicles work differently. The vehicle does block LOS, as per the Arc of Fire Diagrams.

To expand upon this: the weapons just need to be able to point at the unit to draw LoS, then, as Gwar! said, a unit does not block its own LoS, so it won't be granting the target any cover saves, even if only a couple of enemy models are in the "arc" of the weapon.

Thats pretty bad then, even land raiders will struggle to hit a vehicle with both its guns without giving some kind of cover save, i think preds lose a lot of their usefulness then, your better off pivoting and shooting with just 2 guns and keeping the AP value


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, so a gun doesnt need to see more than 50% of a unit?

What matters is if the unit is 50% or more obscured by terrain or other units.

At the top of page 22:

"models can always shoot, and be shot at, through members of their own unit with conferring or receiving a cover save."

So, as long as you can physically point the gun at the unit to qualify for the shot, the hull of the vehicle itself won't block LoS to give the unit a cover save.

Ahk that makes a bit of sense, i just looked at the diagrams and the cover rules and thought it was like a blind spot that gave cover, thanks for the help

The tank is not blocking the shot, the tank is stopping the arc of fire. Since the gun can't pivot, the other targets are not able to be shot, and thus get a cover save.

RAW people!

Sponson weapons are really pretty stupid when you can't fire the two guns you have on the sides of your tank at two different units.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Sponson weapons are really pretty stupid when you can't fire the two guns you have on the sides of your tank at two different units.

Tell that to the Land Raider.

I DID BUT HE WON'T LISTEN

The most two important rules when concerning vehicle firing are these:

page 58 under the heading "Vehicle Weapons And Line of Sight" "...then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model."

The context of this paragraph is about not only drawing LOS but also if the target is in cover to some weapons and not others, then the vehicle is to work out each weapon separately, but you still apply this line to this rule as well.

At the top of page 22:

"In the same way as they can trace line of sight through members of their own squad, models can always shoot, and be shot at, through members of their own unit without conferring or receiving a cover save."

as you can see a vehicle's weapons are treated as separate firing models in a unit and a other models in a unit do not confer a cover save. As you can draw LOS through your own unit.

Basically it seems that you must still be able to see a model to fire at a unit, but not being able to see the whole squad, only because of the vehicle being in the way, does not confer a cover save, otherwise most vehicle weapons would confer a cover save in just about any situation.

You determine LoS by looking down the barrel of the gun. Since the gun can't turn far enough to see the entire target unit, it is in cover.

Actually, since some of the models are out of the firing arc of the side sponson its more a matter that they are out of range of the weapon. They arent in cover, they arent being blocked from view by anything that can give them cover, they are simply out of line of sight.

The list of what provides cover tells us what gives cover saves, and the cover rules specifically mention that the firer's own squad and the target squad cannot give cover. If you are saying that the body of the tank provides cover, thats not allowed.

Reading the LOS rules, the cover rules and the vehicle firing rules then it would seem that there are no cover saves simply because a sponson weapon cant see an entire squad.

Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Actually, since some of the models are out of the firing arc of the side sponson its more a matter that they are out of range of the weapon. They arent in cover, they arent being blocked from view by anything that can give them cover, they are simply out of line of sight.

The list of what provides cover tells us what gives cover saves, and the cover rules specifically mention that the firer's own squad and the target squad cannot give cover. If you are saying that the body of the tank provides cover, thats not allowed.

Reading the LOS rules, the cover rules and the vehicle firing rules then it would seem that there are no cover saves simply because a sponson weapon cant see an entire squad.

Sliggoth

Indeed. Since you determine the LoS by drawing a line down the barrel of a gun, that line will often only intersect one model in a unit, so if the weapon can only "see" one model in most circumstances it would almost always grant a cover save. I don't believe this is the case.

BRB FAQ page 3:
"However, if you mount the same storm bolter on a Razorback, even though it still can rotate 360º, it won’t obviously be able to fire through the Razorback’s main turret, and so it will have a ‘blind spot’."

For the info they don't call them 'arcs of fire' anymore, they're 'arcs of SIGHT'.

This is something I want to post that a good friend Mike West said on TLOS.

The TLOS rule (among others) creates a line of literal and interpretive play BOTH! those that cannot adapt to either are missing an important aspect of the game. either assuming one is bad because it's too restrictive (c'mon guys, it IS a game...it DOES have rules) or assuming one is bad because it isn't real (calling interpretive use a 'house rule' instead of actually part of the rules) can cripple your ability to play, or enjoy a game with others.

fact: TLOS page 16 descriptor lists 2 methods to determine TLOS.
fact: of the two, one is impossible physically, the other is loose for a reason
fact: there are both terrain AND model issues that can make it impossible to determine TLOS by either method.
fact: the creator of 40k has himself said he HATES RAW and erratas, and tourneys...and tourney gits. (okay, not a direct quote, but in so many words over numerous articles interviews etc...)
fact: pg 16 also says (paraphrased) 'if it ain't covered, wing it'

with these facts alone, we can extrapolate that the rules set as given are guidelines to be taken and utilized as tools in a social contract/discourse/intercourse that will result in one person winning and one person losing a simulation of combat in a science 'fiction' environment.
though RAW is necessary for a framework, RAI is necessary to create the RAW, and sometimes figuring out the RAI to unravel RAW discrepancies is necessary.

It seems straightforward enough to me.

From a fluff point of view, the sponson's line of sight is blocked by its inability to turn further. (From a rules point of view it has specific, clearly defined, firing arcs.)

For all intents and purposes, there is a solid wall extending along the edges of its firing arcs. It cannot point there, so it cannot 'see' there, so it cannot shoot there. This means any squad only partially within its firing arc is identical to a squad partially behind a wall. You can only see some of the squad, so it gets some form of cover save, equal to being behind a solid wall (or something else depending on what cover save values you and your opponent have agreed on beforehand.)

You could argue that it doesn't make sense that a squad in the open gets a cover save against something, right in front of it, out in the open, but you have to remember that although from the front of the vehicle you can see the whole squad, from the point of view of the sponson, the squad is partially obscured.

If it makes you feel better, you could probably get your opponent to agree to a houserule that you can hit only the visible models (i.e. you can wound only those models, like the 4th ed rules), but they get no cover save, which arguably makes more sense, but does open up the possibility of exploits (angling your vehicle so a sponson can only 'see' the squad leader, etc.)

That's it. I'm modeling all my predators and LR's into hexagons! Problem solved!






-Orkishly

orkishlyorkish wrote:That's it. I'm modeling all my predators and LR's into hexagons! Problem solved!

Go triangle. Then you don't have a rear.

RustyKnight wrote:

orkishlyorkish wrote:That's it. I'm modeling all my predators and LR's into hexagons! Problem solved!

Go triangle. Then you don't have a rear.

You have a rear so long as you have corners (the "point" is the front in your triangle example).

What you want are Spheres. No Rear/Side/Front/Top Armour

Gwar! wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:

orkishlyorkish wrote:That's it. I'm modeling all my predators and LR's into hexagons! Problem solved!

Go triangle. Then you don't have a rear.

You have a rear so long as you have corners (the "point" is the front in your triangle example).

What you want are Spheres. No Rear/Side/Front/Top Armour

So things like prism tanks which are teardrop shaped have only front and rear armour?
Or is it that you divide a tank into approximate quarters, and so for something like a sphere you would just draw an x on it (not literally), and use those quadrants as the different sides?

Hmmm..... For LOS purposes, is there anything in RAW against using epic mini's? lol joking Would never use epic mini's in a game of 40k.

@crucius The problem with giving cover saves to a unit that has models outside of a sponson's firing arc is that one of the specific exceptions to blocking LOS for cover purposes is: models in the firing unit do do not give cover. So since the wall of the tank is obviously part of the firing unit, it cannot provide cover.

Raw on firing arcs sems to be very similar to firing at a unit that is partially beyond a weapons firing range:


F.........................................A..B..C

If model A is within range of a weapon from the firing unit F, but models B and C are beyond the firing range then F can still fire at the unit ABC.


For a sponson weapon, if B and C are stacked vertically above A, and out of the firing arc for F, then once again F can fire at the unit ABC. There is nothing in the cover save rules that would allow B and C to be deemed in cover.

The Raw is treating models outside of the firing arc of the sponson as being out of range, not giving them cover.



Sliggoth

Moncalcruiser wrote:according to the rules the squad is in cover from 2 out of 3 weapons and thus gets cover saves from all the shots.

Think you are looking at that rule wrong. Each gun is it's own unit for the purposes of determining cover.

LOS from a gun is limited to the firing arcs and its mounting. If you have models outside the arc of a gun, they would be treated the same as shooting at a squad that is partially out of LOS behind a building. The gun can't see what is outside it's firing arc. Work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit. If you have 50% outside the arc of a gun, your unit would get a cover save from that particular gun.

Your arc is determined by the shape and position of the sponsons mounting. There shouldn't be a situation where you are drawing LOS through the hull of a sponson mounted weapon, as their arcs end at the hull. The diagrams on page 59 show that clearly I think.

It is not the tank that is giving a cover save, it is the fact the sponsons don't have LoS to the entire unit.
Gun 'see' down the barrel.
Sponson barrels can't move 360
If the gun can't see the models, the models are obscured from the LoS of the gun.
Thus they are in cover.

Sliggoth wrote:
The Raw is treating models outside of the firing arc of the sponson as being out of range, not giving them cover.

Actually, this makes perfect sense to me, and if its not what RAW specifies, its what I'd prefer to houserule.

What it comes down to then, is whether or not RAW considers the range of the weapon to be not only a linear distance, but also its firing arc.

If it does, then if you can see any model in a squad you can shoot as if you could see the whole squad.
If it doesn't, then depending on how many models you can see, the unit may get some form of cover save.

Could someone with a rulebook on hand confirm this?

Crucius wrote:

Sliggoth wrote:
The Raw is treating models outside of the firing arc of the sponson as being out of range, not giving them cover.

Actually, this makes perfect sense to me, and if its not what RAW specifies, its what I'd prefer to houserule.

What it comes down to then, is whether or not RAW considers the range of the weapon to be not only a linear distance, but also its firing arc.

If it does, then if you can see any model in a squad you can shoot as if you could see the whole squad.
If it doesn't, then depending on how many models you can see, the unit may get some form of cover save.

Could someone with a rulebook on hand confirm this?

I see nothing in my rulebook to confirm that models outside the firing arc are considered out of range. Quite the opposite, I see the rulebook treating models outside the firing arc as being out of LOS.

You trace LOS from the weapons mounting point, and then down the barrel. If you are at the edge of your arc, you trace the line out, and anything on the side of that line that is outside the arc would thus be out of LOS for that gun.