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.

Can someone explain to me the rules for the Hive Guards gun? Maybe i am slowed but im slightly confused. Does it work the same way as a barrage weapon but without the scatter?

You ignore the part about needing LOS in the "shooting" section of the rules. Everything else applies.

But it does say specifically that the units must be IN cover to receive a cover save, not merely behind it. So a vehicle/unit must be inside a piece of cover otherwise cover saves may not be made.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You ignore the part about needing LOS in the "shooting" section of the rules. Everything else applies.

Exactly right. It is NOT Barrage, it is a normal weapon that just happens to ignore the need to have LoS.

So the unit I'm shooting at has to be in area terrain for them to get a cover save?

That is correct. It's actually very clear in the entry for the weapon, which is rare.

Nope. Says you have to be in or touching, with the cover between you and the Hive Guard. Thus, if you are defending a linear piece, like a Barricade, and I shoot you from behind, you don't get it.

I think this is here as it precludes you claiming cover further away (for example, they fire at extreme range. Between you and the Hiveguard lies a wall. Unless you are physically touching said wall, it is ignored for the purposes of cover saves). This also means they ignore screening units between you and the Hiveguard!

The wording is the same for Tau SMS and it's been argued here that cover in that case follows the definition on pages 21-22 where cover includes obscuration in addition to physical terrain. It was understood in that argument that the SMS rule was written for 4th edition where cover was only physical cover and not merely being obscured. Now we have a new codex written for 5th edition and the the wording in unchanged. I think the RAI is that they mean physical cover now like before, but the RAW still includes obscuration and so most units will get cover saves from the impaler cannon until GW FAQs it.

But you won't. You have to be physically IN cover (so in the midst of another unit) or touching it (barricade example) to claim it. The Hiveguard effectively ignore obscuration etc.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Yes, the RAI is pretty clear. But here's the recap of the RAW:


"The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the hive guard."

The issue resolves around the first condition, "cover they are in."

Page 21:

"When is a unit in cover?"

"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."

In which case you would always get a cover save, as the Hiveguard will generally be somewhere you can't see them, so from their PoV, you are obscured.

There is a difference to being behind cover, and being in cover. In Cover is standing in an area wood, or a ruin. Standing behind your mates is not.

Hive Guard's weaponry rules actually include the word "only", whereas the Tau do not. Which is to say Impaler cannons specify the ONLY way cover saves can be made, where the Tau weaponry just states additional ways to claim cover.

This important distinction is missed by many.

The addition of "only" makes the RAI clear as stated before. It doesn't change how cover is defined in 5th edition. So the RAW is still the same.

Note that I am not stating that this is how I would play it whether playing with or against nids.

Certainly acceptable.
INAT states that they are are the same, despite the different wording.

What seems even less clear is the cover rules for Vehicles fired upon from Hive Guard, which is what 90% of Hive Guard shots are going to be at and again with about 90% not having LoS. I'm not even sure on the RaI of that situation let alone the RaW.

I think Arschbombe is correct on both the Rules and the RaW for infantry, but for vehicles this seems far more problem matic in determining 50% coverage unless all vehicles always get a cover save when there is no LoS?

So what do people think about Hive Guard vs an Ork Kustom Force Field.

Cover save or not for the Orks and their Trucks?

What about vs things like Smoke poped by vehicles and models that always get a cover save even in the open?

Is the HiveGuard weapon a ranged flamer persay?

Lyracian wrote:So what do people think about Hive Guard vs an Ork Kustom Force Field.

davidson wrote:What about vs things like Smoke poped by vehicles and models that always get a cover save even in the open?

Both the KFF and smoke grant obscured status to vehicles entitling them to cover saves. That means they are "in cover" and so by strict letter of the rules they get cover saves against the impaler cannon.

Arschbombe wrote:

Lyracian wrote:So what do people think about Hive Guard vs an Ork Kustom Force Field.

davidson wrote:What about vs things like Smoke poped by vehicles and models that always get a cover save even in the open?

Both the KFF and smoke grant obscured status to vehicles entitling them to cover saves. That means they are "in cover" and so by strict letter of the rules they get cover saves against the impaler cannon.

Do the cover saves skimmers get from going flat out count as obscurring?

Skimmers count as Obscured, hence they *get* a cover save - being Obscured grants a cover save of 4+ unless otherwise told.

I still don't know how a vehicle gains cover against a hidden Hive Guard? Does it ALWAYS get cover due to TLoS or does it never get cover unless specified by some status?

Technically the same is true for infantry isn't it? As they are obscured from the point of the Hive Guard they count as in cover right?

No, as the Hive Guard rule states you only get to count cover you are in or touching.

So a vehicle would have to be touching a high wall or something else that blocks LOS to >50% of the vehicle facing from the direction the hive guard are shooting from.

No, as the Hive Guard rule states you only get to count cover you are in or touching.

But if you are 50% or more obscured from the point of the firer are you not "in cover"?

I think I see what you mean and that makes sense.

No, as you can ONLY count the benefits of cover "you are in or touching" - from the HG rules.

So, simply having cover in the way is not suffciient - you have to be IN or TOUCHING it.

So, simply having cover in the way is not suffciient - you have to be IN or TOUCHING it.

I'm not convinced you aree right please explain to me your definition of "in cover" and why that is different from the BRBs definition (i.e. having ANY part of the model obscured from eth point of the firer or 50% for vehicles).

It says you have to be in or touching cover. But if you are 50% obscured from the point of view of the firer (you'd always be 100% obscured in this instance) you'd be "in cover" hence satisfying that first condition?

Its not his definition, its the statement of the Hive Guards weapon. Obscured is not used to determine cover from this particular weapon. You must have the model physically IN or TOUCHING a cover granting terrain piece for you to receive the benefits of such terrain.

FlingitNow wrote:

So, simply having cover in the way is not suffciient - you have to be IN or TOUCHING it.

I'm not convinced you aree right please explain to me your definition of "in cover" and why that is different from the BRBs definition (i.e. having ANY part of the model obscured from eth point of the firer or 50% for vehicles).

It says you have to be in or touching cover. But if you are 50% obscured from the point of view of the firer (you'd always be 100% obscured in this instance) you'd be "in cover" hence satisfying that first condition?

It states you may ONLY *benefit* from cover you are in or touching.

If you are trying to gain a cover save from OTHER cover than the stuff you are in or touching then you are trying to benefit from the cover - which is expressly forbidden

InquisitorFabius wrote:Its not his definition, its the statement of the Hive Guards weapon. Obscured is not used to determine cover from this particular weapon. You must have the model physically IN or TOUCHING a cover granting terrain piece for you to receive the benefits of such terrain.

That's RAI. You are inferring that the cover must be physical terrain, but that is not part of the impaler cannon rule. The rulebook defines cover to include obscuration. So while the RAI is easily understood the RAW still grants cover saves to any target out of LOS of the Hive Guard. I don't think many people will play it that way, however.

Nope, the rule requires the cover is physical

"cover you are touching or IN" doesnt allow much leeway.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nope, the rule requires the cover is physical

"cover you are touching or IN" doesnt allow much leeway.

*sigh*

Allow myself to quote...myself,

Arschbombe wrote:

"The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the hive guard."

The issue resolves around the first condition, "cover they are in."

Page 21:

"When is a unit in cover?"

"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 there you have it. A unit that is obscured is in cover. Couldn't be more simple. The hive guard rule does not redefine cover for the impaler cannon to be just physical cover. It's implied, but not stated explicitly.