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.

This question cropped up on my local forums from someone. I have my own opinion on it, but I wanted to throw it out to a wider audience to see how people handle it.

When you fire a Blast weapon and it scatters with the marker landing on a vehicle that wasn't the target, do you allow the vehicle a cover save if there is enough intervening terrain between the vehicle that actually got hit and the firing model?

Remember the rule for vehicles getting a cover save is that at least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening... (emphasis mine to highlight the key point).

The argument came up that since that vehicle was not the target, the cover rule doesn't apply. So how do you play it, and why?

RaW, it seems that if the Original Target had a cover save, then the affected vehicle would also get one, regardless if it would have gotten one or not had it been the original target.

If the Original Target didn't, then the Affected vehicle could not, even if it was obscured by cover, unless it was also affected by some other, non terrain factor (such as Smoke Launchers or Skimmers Moving Fast).

As such, I think a "Depends" option would be nice

Added a depends option.

The reasoning you give is interesting, that isn't an answer I have heard before. Can you elaborate why you think the cover save would transfer please?

Kaaihn wrote:When you fire a template weapon and it scatters...

I'm assuming that you actually mean Blast, rather than Template.

Remember the rule for vehicles getting a cover save is that at least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening...

I would take the 'targeted' part as simply being a GW-ism for the vehicle being hit by the shot.

So if the vehicle is obscured, it gets a cover save.

insaniak wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:When you fire a template weapon and it scatters...

I'm assuming that you actually mean Blast, rather than Template.

LOL, whoops! Good catch, I'll fix that.

Kaaihn wrote:Added a depends option.

The reasoning you give is interesting, that isn't an answer I have heard before. Can you elaborate why you think the cover save would transfer please?

As you said, at least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening terrain to get a cover save. If 50% of the targeted vehicle is obscured, then that allows for a cover save, even if the blast scatters onto a vehicle out in the open.

However, a Special Rule (such as the Aforementioned Smoke launchers) would provide the affected (not targeted) vehicle a cover save if appropriate.

Also, just to nitpick, it's a scattered Blast marker, not a Template. Only the Tear-dropped shaped Flamer Template is actually a Template.

GAH ninjaed

Just because you initially select a target unit to fire at doesn't mean that another unit (or units) cannot end up being the actual "target" of the shooting.

One of the many definitions of the word "target" is:

"anything fired at."


That is most certainly the way I'd play it and I think it is the only way that makes any logical sense in the rules as well.

yakface wrote:That is most certainly the way I'd play it and I think it is the only way that makes any logical sense in the rules as well.

I agree, I'd play it this way also, I am just playing silly buggers/devils advocate I suppose.

I actually voted Depends though, because it does need clearing up pre game I would imagine.

yakface wrote:
Just because you initially select a target unit to fire at doesn't mean that another unit (or units) cannot end up being the actual "target" of the shooting.

One of the many definitions of the word "target" is:

"anything fired at."


That is most certainly the way I'd play it and I think it is the only way that makes any logical sense in the rules as well.

That is how I've always thought of it myself.

Just to play devils advocate though, if I fire at a Rhino in front of me and the round ricochets and hits the Vindicator next to it, I didn't shoot at the Vindicator. The end result may be that I shot the Vindicator, but I didn't actually shoot at the Vindicator.

If I didn't fire at the Vindicator, it wasn't my target, and it says the cover save is for a vehicle that is being targeted. It's a pretty straight forward interpretation that I can't really find direct fault with; it's what made me curious how a wider audience views it.

Kaaihn wrote:Just to play devils advocate though, if I fire at a Rhino in front of me and the round ricochets and hits the Vindicator next to it, I didn't shoot at the Vindicator.

For what it's worth, when it comes to Blast weapons, I don't think the scatter is supposed to represent ricochets so much as the shot simply being off-target.

The point is still good, though.

The counter-point would be that whether or not it was deliberate, if your shot hits the Vindicator, you shot at the Vindicator.
You may have shot at it unintentionally. You may have thought you were shooting at something else. But what you actually did was shoot at the Vindicator.

I suppose if you brought the argument into the real world ( I know , I know ). Then if you were sitting in your tank with two targets in front of you, a vindicator out in the open , and a leman russ behind a wall. Then you fire your cannon , but whoops what a poor shot ! You missed totally and the shell flew at the leman russ. Now, how could you not hit the wall in front of the russ? So the russ would get a cover save.

vodski wrote:I suppose if you brought the argument into the real world ( I know , I know ). Then if you were sitting in your tank with two targets in front of you, a vindicator out in the open , and a leman russ behind a wall. Then you fire your cannon , but whoops what a poor shot ! You missed totally and the shell flew at the leman russ. Now, how could you not hit the wall in front of the russ? So the russ would get a cover save.

If there was a Leman Russ and a Vindicator in front of me, were I manning a real-world tank, I would probably crap myself and proceed directly to praying...

Che-Vito wrote:

vodski wrote:I suppose if you brought the argument into the real world ( I know , I know ). Then if you were sitting in your tank with two targets in front of you, a vindicator out in the open , and a leman russ behind a wall. Then you fire your cannon , but whoops what a poor shot ! You missed totally and the shell flew at the leman russ. Now, how could you not hit the wall in front of the russ? So the russ would get a cover save.

If there was a Leman Russ and a Vindicator in front of me, were I manning a real-world tank, I would probably crap myself and proceed directly to praying...

While killing them from 9001 miles away with your vastly superior technology?

Gwar! wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

vodski wrote:I suppose if you brought the argument into the real world ( I know , I know ). Then if you were sitting in your tank with two targets in front of you, a vindicator out in the open , and a leman russ behind a wall. Then you fire your cannon , but whoops what a poor shot ! You missed totally and the shell flew at the leman russ. Now, how could you not hit the wall in front of the russ? So the russ would get a cover save.

If there was a Leman Russ and a Vindicator in front of me, were I manning a real-world tank, I would probably crap myself and proceed directly to praying...

While killing them from 9001 miles away with your vastly superior technology?

2009 battle tank v.s. Leman Russ...

vodski wrote:I suppose if you brought the argument into the real world ( I know , I know ). Then if you were sitting in your tank with two targets in front of you, a vindicator out in the open , and a leman russ behind a wall. Then you fire your cannon , but whoops what a poor shot ! You missed totally and the shell flew at the leman russ. Now, how could you not hit the wall in front of the russ? So the russ would get a cover save.

It could have ricocheted off the vindicator and exploded on the russ. The rules do reference scatter as a chance of ricochet as one example. But we never know what the real reason was, it could have been poor aim, could have been ricochet, anything.

Che-Vito wrote:2009 battle tank v.s. Leman Russ...

Yes, a 2009 Tank far outstrips anything a Leman Russ Can do by miles.

Gwar! wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:2009 battle tank v.s. Leman Russ...

Yes, a 2009 Tank far outstrips anything a Leman Russ Can do by miles.

Show me the proof of that then! Hey a russ has side sponsons afterall , I wonder why they don't use them anymore. I bet they were greaty in WW1.

it also depends. If the hole lands on to the vehicle and it is not a barrage weapon, then cover as normal... or if the blast is off the vehicle, and you take the armour facing from the side the blast fell from, or if it is a barrage weapon... then no.

Kaaihn wrote:

vodski wrote:I suppose if you brought the argument into the real world ( I know , I know ). Then if you were sitting in your tank with two targets in front of you, a vindicator out in the open , and a leman russ behind a wall. Then you fire your cannon , but whoops what a poor shot ! You missed totally and the shell flew at the leman russ. Now, how could you not hit the wall in front of the russ? So the russ would get a cover save.

It could have ricocheted off the vindicator and exploded on the russ. The rules do reference scatter as a chance of ricochet as one example. But we never know what the real reason was, it could have been poor aim, could have been ricochet, anything.

Edit*** Noticed my post was irrelevant in the end

vodski wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:2009 battle tank v.s. Leman Russ...

Yes, a 2009 Tank far outstrips anything a Leman Russ Can do by miles.

Show me the proof of that then! Hey a russ has side sponsons afterall , I wonder why they don't use them anymore. I bet they were greaty in WW1.

Perfect.