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.

Hey YMDC'ers, I came across something a few minutes ago that literally made my jaw drop and wanted to submit this, perhaps ultimate of Dick Moves, for YMDC's consideration:

The Vehicle Squadron rules stipulate that where a unit firing at a squadron of vehicles with different AV values (say, for example, because the firing unit is in differing facings of the vehicles) that the it is the facing of the nearest visible member of the unit that determines which facing/AV is being shot at.

However, once rolls to hit are made as are penetration rolls against the closest facing of the squadron, they are allocated to members of the vehicle squadron by the squadron's player, at which point cover saves are determined in the manner that they are for vehicles.

All well and good, however what happens if someone has a squad of two Leman Russ Tanks, the closest to the enemy facing forwards (and thus presenting AV14) and the further away one turned around (so the firing unit would be in that vehicles back arc).

Now, when fired at, the shots must be resolved against the front arc of the vehicles in the squadron because of the rule above, however, once a penetrating hit is allocated to the LRBT facing backwards, it appears to now be entitled to claim a 3+ cover save because the shot was resolved against a facing the firing unit cannot see at all...please tell me I'm missing something here or does this mean that RAW a squadron of vehicles can get a 3+ cover save in the open?

yep but i think it would be a 4+ save (obscured).. ins't it

the vehicle i think can give each other cover


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yep but i think it would be a 4+ save (obscured).. ins't it

the vehicle i think can give each other cover

You arent resolving the shot against the other facing, therefore no cover save.

You determine the 3+ before you shoot, and at the time you shoot you can see the facing that you are in, so no cover save at that point. You also ignore the other vehicle for the purpose of determining cover.

end result: no, this doesnt work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You arent resolving the shot against the other facing, therefore no cover save.

You determine the 3+ before you shoot, and at the time you shoot you can see the facing that you are in, so no cover save at that point. You also ignore the other vehicle for the purpose of determining cover.

end result: no, this doesnt work.

Bah, you beat me too it.

This is of 'http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/' isn't it and it's wrong for a variety of reasons - the first problem you'll have is that a majority is 'Something greater than half of the whole'

Your second problem is this amazing leap of logic "Because the second vehicle is facing away from your opponent, your opponent cannot see the front arc of that vehicle."
Wait what since when was the facing one could see anything to do with see if a vehicle is obscured when drawing LoS to the firer?

And thirdly but it didn't come into how he phrased it, when there is a variety of AV one "the vehicles in the
squadron have different Armour Values on different
facings, use the Armour Value of the facing of the
closest visible vehicle."

Bah I was busy telling them why it didn't work on the YTTH

The shot is resolved against the appropriate armor of the closest model as you described. After the penetration roll has been made and allocated any successes could be saved against if the majority of the squadron's models were in majority cover (ain't that a mouthful).

In this case, it isn't that the penetrating hit is being resolved against an armor facing not shown to the shooting model (and thus counting under the 'super-obscured' rule) but rather that a hit was rolled for against the front armor and then resolved against a different model. The penetrating hit was gained by resolving a hit against the front armor of the first model but the damage alone is resolved against the second (and most likely tactically less useful) model.

In other words: No.

Also: DAMN. Beaten to the punch three times over.

ChrisCP wrote:This is of 'http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/' isn't it

That explains everything...

Just to clarify, I certainly wasn't suggesting that it *should* work, in fact I am hoping it doesn't. I just happened to see it on YTTH and figured I'd drop it in YMDC's lap and see what everyone here made of it.

You determine the 3+ before you shoot, and at the time you shoot you can see the facing that you are in, so no cover save at that point. You also ignore the other vehicle for the purpose of determining cover.

See I'm not sure this applies in this case because of this specific wording in the vehicle squadron rules:

"Once all of the armor penetration rolls have been made, the player controlling the squadron allocates the glancing and penetrating hits [...] Then he takes any cover saves available to the squadron - use the rules for vehicles to determine etc. etc."

This would appear to suggest that in the vehicle squadron rules cover is worked out after hits have been allocated, by which point the shots have already been resolved against a facing the firing unit could not see (specifically the front arc of the LRBT facing backwards).

Again, just to be clear, I'm hardly *advocating* for this interpretation, nor is it of any relevance to any army I own or play, I'm only making the argument so you all can tear it down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slackermagee wrote:The shot is resolved against the appropriate armor of the closest model as you described. After the penetration roll has been made and allocated any successes could be saved against if the majority of the squadron's models were in majority cover (ain't that a mouthful).

In this case, it isn't that the penetrating hit is being resolved against an armor facing not shown to the shooting model (and thus counting under the 'super-obscured' rule) but rather that a hit was rolled for against the front armor and then resolved against a different model. The penetrating hit was gained by resolving a hit against the front armor of the first model but the damage alone is resolved against the second (and most likely tactically less useful) model.

In other words: No.

Also: DAMN. Beaten to the punch three times over.

Actually, I think you've got the right answer for why it doesn't work. The rules for firing at a vehicle squadron instruct you to resolve the shot against the facing of the nearest squadron member and thus over-rule the vehicle cover save rule for firing at a facing one is not in because the shots are not resolves against any facing of squadron member's that aren't the closest model to the firer.

Because at no point have you fired at that vehicle, therefore that cover save CANOT apply - you have *not* fired at the vehicle facing the other way, you have fired at another vehicle entirely.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because at no point have you fired at that vehicle, therefore that cover save CANOT apply - you have *not* fired at the vehicle facing the other way, you have fired at another vehicle entirely.

Well you've fired at the squadron, you never shoot at individuals in a unit.

Jack

Except you HAVE fired at a specific vehicle - the one closest to you.

So at no point have you "fired at a facing you can see while in another facing" which is how you generate the 3+ save.

Gwar! wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:This is of 'http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/' isn't it

That explains everything...

It's not one of Stelek's articles - some aussie called jasonc submitted it. It's pure fail from start to finish.