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.

Yet again, was wondering if these ignore linear terrain as they ignore LOS... now I dont think they do... but it lost me a tournament once... because the guy claimed that it did ignore and my warriors died horribly and fled off his objective... So if they do ignore or they don't where would i find the quites and info needed?

Cheers!

You have to be in Area Terrain in order to get a cover save versus the SMS.

Wait, he "claimed"?

Why didn't you look at his codex?

I think there are multiple threads on this, but the book is very clear that Cover Saves are determined by LoS from the firer. If LoS is not applicable, then it's safe to say that it doesn't confer coversaves.

Exact wording from the codex:

Tau Codex Pg 27 states:
"The Smart Missile System can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are toughing if it lies between them and the firer."

It does not ignore cover saves but in order to use cover you must be in or touching it and it must be in the line of sight from the firing unit.

Fair enough. Make sure you get that BtB then!

rogueeyes wrote:Exact wording from the codex:

Tau Codex Pg 27 states:
"The Smart Missile System can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are toughing if it lies between them and the firer."

It does not ignore cover saves but in order to use cover you must be in or touching it and it must be in the line of sight from the firing unit.

what if there is a unit between the you and the firer. You are in cover right?

If yes.. then all normal 5th edition cover rules will apply too?

If you were physically touching the unit, perhaps.

They can only benefit from being in or touching cover.

Thunder555 wrote:

rogueeyes wrote:Exact wording from the codex:

Tau Codex Pg 27 states:
"The Smart Missile System can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are toughing if it lies between them and the firer."

It does not ignore cover saves but in order to use cover you must be in or touching it and it must be in the line of sight from the firing unit.

what if there is a unit between the you and the firer. You are in cover right?

If yes.. then all normal 5th edition cover rules will apply too?

No, because the codex overrides the rulebook. This brings up an odd point though. What if you are surrounded by another unit? This would be similar to intermingling units that some people do to get cover saves. For example see the crude diagram below:

XXX
XOX
XXX

The X's are one unit and the other unit is in the middle represented by the O. Does this count as being "in" cover per se?

I would say if you were touching the unit in front of you then you would receive the cover save since you are touching cover (represented by your unit in front of you).

Then again, if it was me I'd jsut nail you with a large blast from the AFP if you were that bunched up.

Thing i was after here was that Tau codex says:"The Smart Missile System can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are toughing if it lies between them and the firer."

Rulebook says on page 21
"When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover. "

And i just cant see why these two entries would conflict. Tau codex says you have to be in cover and rulebook defines what being in cover actually is.

But i asked around a little bit and i've been told that im wrong with this.. so ill settle with INAT FAQ 3.0 answers about the matter

The basic argument is that no LOS is required to fire the SMS, thus the normal rules for cover which refer to LOS, do not apply. However if the target is in terrain that gives a cover save then it does get the save. The additional comment about touching cover, if it lies between the firer and the target is, it seems, fairly straight forward but has equally been the cause of questions on this rule.

INAT FAQ has clarification on this one by the way.

The problems come in assuming the codex says "only".

And assuming that being able to "engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not" has anything to do with whether the engaged target can take cover saves.

Neither is stated.

kirsanth wrote:The problems come in assuming the codex says "only".

And assuming that being able to "engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not" has anything to do with whether the engaged target can take cover saves.

Neither is stated.

I think 'may count the benefit of' pretty obviously tells us that it affects cover saves that don't fit the criteria. No 'only' is needed. What would be the point of mentioning it, especially the bit about 'touching'?

Ridcully wrote:
I think 'may count the benefit of' pretty obviously tells us that it affects cover saves that don't fit the criteria. No 'only' is needed. What would be the point of mentioning it, especially the bit about 'touching'?

That just reminded me about what i saw in other thread

Gwar! wrote:To Quote Polonius

Polonius wrote:there's a saying I learned in law school: "never use the terms 'clearly' or 'obviously' when arguing. If something were obvious, you wouldn't be arguing." It's probably not a bad rule of thumb for YMDC.

This needs to be Rule #8

The majority of the problem comes from the 4th ed Tau Codex wording referring to cover saves, which are now handled differently. I think the only way to really play it is to consider being in area terrain or touching a piece of cover between the sms and the unit being fired upon a cover save.

synchronicity wrote:The majority of the problem comes from the 4th ed Tau Codex wording referring to cover saves, which are now handled differently. I think the only way to really play it is to consider being in area terrain or touching a piece of cover between the sms and the unit being fired upon a cover save.

And since you cannot touch an enemy model, unless you are in assault, Tau units will NOT provide cover saves, even if they are between the firing Seeker, and it's target.

"Can benefit" in no way states "Can ONLY benefit" - it gives additional circumstances in which you can gain cvover, and in no way overrides 5th ed.

Codex only overrides when it is more specific, in this case it is a complementary rule.

Thunder555 wrote:

Ridcully wrote:
I think 'may count the benefit of' pretty obviously tells us that it affects cover saves that don't fit the criteria. No 'only' is needed. What would be the point of mentioning it, especially the bit about 'touching'?

That just reminded me about what i saw in other thread

Gwar! wrote:To Quote Polonius

Polonius wrote:there's a saying I learned in law school: "never use the terms 'clearly' or 'obviously' when arguing. If something were obvious, you wouldn't be arguing." It's probably not a bad rule of thumb for YMDC.

This needs to be Rule #8

When a vast majority of people interpret something the same as you do, you too can use such a word correctly. Until that day, have fun picking apart people's wording without adding anything to the discussion. When sentences begin with "i think" and "i would say", they show individual view.

@Nosforatu: That may be a very RAW view, but it certainly isn't RAI or how the majority play.

I made a thread about this very subject and Kirsanth was against models not getting a cover save.

I believe they do as the rules for SMS give 2 very clear conditions on how to receive a cover save.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/254957.page

Ridcully - yes, it is a RAW way of doing it, however it is exactly how it is played in the tournies round here.

Where RAW is unclear, use RAI. Here, RAW isn't unclear.

i think its pretty straight forward in the entry TBH. YOu can get cover, in certain instances.

....and those instances in no way actually override 5th ed methods of determining cover.

So you get cover from 5th ed PLUS the SMS methods of determining. Missing the "only" means they count as additrional methods only.

so all in all, you get cover. Good to know!

Cheers.

Personally I agree with the INAT FAQ.

As i'm sure the majority of tournies and clubs do, regardless of what nosferatu suggests locally.

Its a 4th ed codex, where cover was plain screwed, fitting in with 5th ed.

RAI - it probably should only give cover as directed.

RAW - clear; it in no way overrides 5th ed cover saves and how they are determined.

What is the inat faq ; isnt it you have to physically have the model touching cover or be in cover to get a save.

Linear cover like a wall you need to be behind and touching.

Area cover like woods, etc you need to be in.

Missiles fly over and ignore chunks of cover you are not in or touching, such as a wall or hill in between the shooter and you.

Ok i seriously dont understand what the problem is. You have to be touching cover or in it to get a cover save.
If your not doing either one of those things, you dont get one. What's for discussion here?!?!