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.

I first posted this over at Heresy and figured Id post it here to get your point of views.
http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=52848
Basically its an argument on whether or not a vehicle gains a cover save when shooting at it through area terrain, woods in this case.
I will just copy paste my important posts from that thread.

For easy refference, post 1 is a introduction to the argument, post 2 is a gathering on all the rules, post 3 is GW response when I called them and asked them about it.

So how do you guys play it?
What is your experience with area terrain and vehicles?

Adding a poll so people who dont post can still contribute



Post 1:
Ok, so last friday I went to the club and was looking at the local pro kicking the ass of a tyranid player. As always the local pro had tons of terrain on his side while the tyranid player had 2 pieces. After looking at the battle for 10 minutes I got bored because of all the strange rules the "pro" was declaring, and when his blasts weapons scattered they always seemed to scatter right into units.
Like the frag rocket he shot, it scattered and he placed it so it was hitting 5 models. The other played said "Hey wtf, thats not the direction it scattered in" and moved it to where it should have hit, it was not only hittin 2 targets.

When talking to other people at the club they say he pretty much always pulls gak like this, which is why allot of people dont want to play vs him.

Anyways, once the battle was over I confronted him about the way he was kicking my ass the week before and about him shooting between trees and that not giving me cover saves.
I discussed what I had been told on the forums here (that I should have been given a 4+ cover save) but he said those rules are only for infantry.

I know I had read about it in the rulebook and this is what I found in the BRB on pg. 22.
Exceptions :
Firing through units or area terrain: If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or though the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the TARGET is in cover, EVEN IF IT IS COMPLETLY VISIBLE TO THE FIRER.
Does not count for shots going over the terrain.

So basically, I parked my exorcists and rhinos behind area terrain but they only got a cover save when a tree was directly in the way of LOS.
However according to these rules I should get a cover save no matter what.

So I showed him the statement and again he said its only for infantry and not for vehicles.

I looked over the vehicle section and the ONLY thing I can find is this pg. 62:
Vehicles are not obscurred simply for being INSIDE area terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence.

However, I was not INSIDE area terrain, I was BEHIND it.

So here I am again, asking you guys about rules that to me seem pretty obvious but have no merit since hes a "pro" and Im a noob.

So who is right and who is wrong?

If Im wrong please point me to a page number where it specifically says that when shooting a VEHICLE THROUGH AREA TERRAIN they dont get a cover save if you see more than 50% of the vehicle.


Post 2:
I just read through the rules one more time and you are right Coffemug, the rules are clear but if you dont pay attention you will missinterpret them.

Im going to list out everything Ive read in favour of my point of view (Im going to call GW tomorrow and ask them anyways and will report back what they said).

Pg. 16 : True Line of Sight
CLEARLY states you need to determine LOS from the head (can be interpreted as from weapon as well for vehicles) of a model to the body (head, arms, legs and torso. Flags, wings etc dont count) of the target.
This is pretty clear right?

Pg. 62 : Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets
The difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following EXCEPTIONS to the NORMAL rules for cover.
This is pretty clear right? The rules below override the NORMAL rules for cover.


Pg. 62 : Bullet Point
The first bullet point CLEARLY states that atleast 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by INTERVENING TERRAIN or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover.
This seems pretty clear right? The vehicle needs to be ATLEAST 50% obscurred by INTERVENING TERRAIN (by this we can assume ANY and ALL terrain and terrain types)

Pg. 21 : Cover Saves
This page lists all the NORMAL rules for cover, it explains types when a model is in cover and so fourth.
This seems pretty clear right? You read the page and you get all the NORMAL rules for cover.


Pg. 22 : Exceptions to the Normal cover save rules.
This is where I believe you got it wrong Coffemug. You are right about page 62 stating a vehicle needs to be atleast 50% obscurred by INTERVENING TERRAIN.
The page allso says that the bullet points on that page are exceptions to the NORMAL rules for cover.

So back to page 22, whats on this page? Well, its not NORMAL rules for cover, it lists all the EXCEPTIONS to the normal rules.
In order to keep the game flowing at a faster pace, we have made a fiew EXCEPTIONS to the cover rules given on the previous page (page 21).

The 3rd bullet point CLEARLY STATES : If a model fires THROUGH the gaps BETWEEN some elements of AREA TERRAIN (such as BETWEEN TWO TREES in a wood) or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, THE TARGET IS IN COVER, EVEN IF IT IS COMPLETLY VISIBLE TO THE FIRER.

I rest my case.
I can see how many people can get this wrong, Im not 100% sure Im right either since I have never been to a tourney and have only played 2 games in total. So my argument is pretty much nul and void because I lack experience with the game. But this is the way I read the rules. It sucks they have not given any examples of shooting through area terrain on the vehicle page so this is what we have to work with.
The Inquisition is probobly going to pimpslap my post but I hope the way I read the rules is pretty clear.

Will be interesting to see what GW says about this tomorrow.

Maby the exceptions to the normal rules are actually part of the normal rules? and should be counted as normal rules eventhough they are exceptions. You never know with GW.

Post 3:
Ok, I just called GW in the UK, GW in Finland and GW in Sweden.
They all had different points of view on the subject.

GW UK : You dont get a cover save, the more I asked him pointing out my arguments the less he became sure intil he finally said he simply did not know.
He first said that the rules on pg. 62 override the rules on pg. 22 (all of them), this would mean vehicles CANT shoot through their own units or over barriers even if you if LOS over a wall for instance. When I pointed out that makes no sence he became unsure. So I asked to talk to someone else but there was noone else there today.

GW Finland : They basically said its something you need to discuss with you opponent at the start of the game, to determine how much terrain is really on the pieces.

GW Sweden : You do get a cover save, basically area terrain (woods) has allot more terrain features on it than you usually put on them. He gave an example if you use are 15" by 15" piece of terrain, it counts as area terrain but only has a single tree on it. You get a cover save for being behind it because in reality it would have hundreds of trees on it.
He allso said in regards to true line of sight that its ment to help you in regards to area terrain. If you played the way the rules for area terrain are written then you would not be allowed to shoot through woods at all, because woods would 100% BLOCK LOS.
As a compromise they came up with the exception on pg. 22 : Firing through units or area terrain.

So what does this tell us? Well, basically nothing.
I guess you would have to discuss it with your opponent at the start of the battle.

How dense is the forrest on this piece of terrain? Is it only 2 trees on it, or does it count as a forrest? Does it block LOS or can you see through it?

This argument only seems to affect terrain with woods on them, so the question is, how much LOS do trees block on a area terrain piece?


Could you guys call up you local GW stores and ask how they rule? Be sure to bring up the way the rules are written in my example at the top. If they say you dont get a cover save ask if that means the rules on pg. 62 override the exceptions on pg. 22. If they say yes then ask which rules on pg. 22 it overrides, all of them or some of them?
If they say you do get a cover save ask why, how LOS works in regard to woods on area terrain. Try to get as much info as you can, then report back here.

This will be interesting

it says clearly in the BGB that it must be obscured by 50%

unless your AT is big enough to effectively cover 50% of the tank, no this isn't correct.

Also check your spelling before posting, it was difficult to read.

Captain Solon wrote:it says clearly in the BGB that it must be obscured by 50%

unless your AT is big enough to effectively cover 50% of the tank, no this isn't correct.

Also check your spelling before posting, it was difficult to read.

The BGB allso clearly says the rules on page 62 are exceptions to the NORMAL rules for cover.

My spelling? Come on, you have got to be joking?! English is my 4th language and I think Im pretty good at it. If you had difficulty reading my post then I think you need to learn how to read first...

This is really one of those things, where you have to "discuss it with you opponent and if you cant conclude an answer, roll a d6 on it"
Gotta love GW and how they solve their own loop hole writing.


From what I can gather, obviously I wasnt there to see your game, but from what I can tell, if your vehicle was behind a piece of terrain, then you should have been given a 4+ cover save, as it would of been more then 50% covered by the terrain.

Thats why when making terrain, you really should put it all on a base (cardboard for the win) that way you can use the base of the terrain piece as the line of your cover. But anyways yes, I think you should of gotten a 4+ cover on that. Sounds like your local "pro" is a local jerk


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I thought it was written rather nicely so dont worry about the capt.

-didn't post anything on this page.-

Vehicles only ever get a cover save when they are either 50% obscured or a piece of wargear grants them that status.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Vehicles only ever get a cover save when they are either 50% obscured or a piece of wargear grants them that status.

That

While I voted the 50% Obscured and LOS there is a interesting twist in this argument that we may be missing... not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak (pun intended).

If you have a piece of area terrain in the form of trees, and you clearly define the base of the trees as an outline or on a base, then it is common practice to sparsely populate said base to ease the movement of models through the terrain. In practice it is treated as difficult terrain and grants models in and behind it a cover save.

So... the question is are we unfairly penalizing vehicles by this sparse population of trees? Shouldn't we be granting the cover save if (as stated under the normal cover rules) the shot goes between two elements of the terrain (trees, rock spires, whatever counts as "trees")?

The Green Git wrote:While I voted the 50% Obscured and LOS there is a interesting twist in this argument that we may be missing... not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak (pun intended).

If you have a piece of area terrain in the form of trees, and you clearly define the base of the trees as an outline or on a base, then it is common practice to sparsely populate said base to ease the movement of models through the terrain. In practice it is treated as difficult terrain and grants models in and behind it a cover save.

So... the question is are we unfairly penalizing vehicles by this sparse population of trees? Shouldn't we be granting the cover save if (as stated under the normal cover rules) the shot goes between two elements of the terrain (trees, rock spires, whatever counts as "trees")?

It's a good point. For tournaments that I run, I stipulate in advance whether woods are dense and fill the entire base the loose trees are on. Or whether the terrain reflects low brush that hides infantry, and a few small trees. I'm going to be switching some of my scenery to reflect this, with either trees loose to reflect dense forest, or a couple of trees glued to the scenic base, and it represents exactly what you see.

Players in friendly games should obviously discuss the terrain before playing.

mikhaila wrote:Players in friendly games should obviously discuss the terrain before playing.

And from the sound of the OP the problem came up when playing TFG, who would obviously NOT want to discuss terrain beforehand so that whatever is most beneficial could be made up on the spot.

Rule #1 kiddies... discuss terrain before playing. Before deployment. Before that first dice roll.

per RAW, they don't get a save behind anything unless 50% obscured. that's how i voted. how do i play it? i give the person the save and even 5+ saves for not quite 50% obscured vehicles. basically, i'm fine with either choice and ask/leave it up to the opponent. basically, as long as the opponent is consistent, i'm good either way.

Short answer:
If it isn't 50% obscured, it doesn't get a cover save. End.

warboss wrote:per RAW, they don't get a save behind anything unless 50% obscured. that's how i voted. how do i play it? i give the person the save and even 5+ saves for not quite 50% obscured vehicles. basically, i'm fine with either choice and ask/leave it up to the opponent. basically, as long as the opponent is consistent, i'm good either way.

This is where I see it differently when I read it RAW.
On pg. 62 it clearly states that the bullet points on that page are exceptions to the NORMAL rules for cover, the normal rules for cover are on pg.21.
On pg. 22 you find the exceptions to the normal rules for cover and the 3rd bullet point states that you do get a cover save when shooting through trees.

This is where the argument comes from basically.

It does not say anywhere on pg.62 that the rules override the exceptions to the normal rules. If they do override the exceptions to the normal rules then does it only override bullet point 3?
Can you say that the vehicle exceptions override the normal exceptions but only some of them. That doesnt sound right to me. It should either override all the rules or none of them, but overriding all the rules would make it really frustrating for vehicles.

So it seems it comes down to what the players agrees on and it seems this problem pretty much only applies to woods.

Vehicles do not gain cover saves from area terrain. Only if 50% or more of the targeted armor facing is hidden from the firer's perspective (or if a wargear item is granting it otherwise).

MadCowCrazy wrote:

warboss wrote:per RAW, they don't get a save behind anything unless 50% obscured. that's how i voted. how do i play it? i give the person the save and even 5+ saves for not quite 50% obscured vehicles. basically, i'm fine with either choice and ask/leave it up to the opponent. basically, as long as the opponent is consistent, i'm good either way.

This is where I see it differently when I read it RAW.
On pg. 62 it clearly states that the bullet points on that page are exceptions to the NORMAL rules for cover, the normal rules for cover are on pg.21.
On pg. 22 you find the exceptions to the normal rules for cover and the 3rd bullet point states that you do get a cover save when shooting through trees.

This is where the argument comes from basically.

It does not say anywhere on pg.62 that the rules override the exceptions to the normal rules. If they do override the exceptions to the normal rules then does it only override bullet point 3?
Can you say that the vehicle exceptions override the normal exceptions but only some of them. That doesnt sound right to me. It should either override all the rules or none of them, but overriding all the rules would make it really frustrating for vehicles.

So it seems it comes down to what the players agrees on and it seems this problem pretty much only applies to woods.

The "normal rules for cover" includes all of the rules on pages 21 and 22. How can you tell? The effect of area terrain is given on page 22 in the second bullet point, and the second bullet point on page 62 refers to it.

That means that the first bullet point on page 62 does in fact override ALL of the bullet points on page 22 which would give a cover save to a vehicle.

MadCowCrazy wrote:Could you guys call up you local GW stores and ask how they rule?

Calling GW stores accomplishes nothing. You're just getting the opinion of whoever you're talking to... and that's quite often someone who doesn't know the rules as well as you do yourself. The guys in stores are just sales assistants, not games developers.



We had a rather extended thread on vehicles and cover saves a while back, and here's what it basically came down to:

The Vehicles and Cover rules never specifically over-ride the normal rules for cover. So technically they still apply. Which means that vehicles do benefit from cover in all the same instances where infantry would, as well as when they are 50% obscured or obscured by Wargear.

Unfortunately, that doesn't actually help you, because the normal rules for cover grant a cover save against wounds, not against glancing or penetrating hits.

The Vehicles and Cover rules allow vehicles to take a cover save against glancing or penetrating hits, but only when 50% obscured (or obscured by wargear).


So: technically, you're right. A vehicle behind area terrain counts as in cover.
But, unless the vehicle is 50% obscured by that terrain, it's only allowed to take the resultant cover save against wounds.

Nice Insaniak, nailed it there!

By the rules, Insaniak (and others) are right.

But remember GW makes dumb rules.

I play a LOT of paintball in the woods, and people do occasionally bring "tanks." These are usually 4-wheelers or something like that (but I have seen things as large as an ACTUAL HumVee.)

It doesn't take a whole lot of woods to obscure a vehicle. I would grant a cover save (maybe just a 5+) to a vehicle being fired at through area terrain. That rule would also apply to Monstrous Creatures.

Again though, talk about it before hand.