Switch Theme:

5ED: Vehicles and MCs in cover  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Deadly Dire Avenger





Aliso Viejo, CA - But wishing I was in Seattle

ConditionOfMan wrote:I don't see any rules that state that vehicles don't benefit from cover granted by infantry blocking LOS.

Are you getting confused by what it says there in the first paragraph of Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets?

Maybe... it would not be the first time.

ConditionOfMan wrote:
Pg. 62 BRB Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets: Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry - their sheer size and bulk mean they can not take advantage of cover as well as infantry and other smaller, more agile troops...
Can be read as : Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry - their sheer size and bulk mean they can not take advantage of cover as easily as infantry and other smaller, more agile troops.

Furthermore in the first bullet point it says that it "needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models", and makes no effort to define a model as being required to be a MC or vehicle.
Pg. 62 BRB Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets: o At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. it's front, side or rear) 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...
I really don't see what the question is.


Hum, yes it does mention models... which would imply units of any size (maybe the vehicle is in a crater/lower with models/unit at the top of the crater or just a vehicle on flat ground with a MC in front).

So a vehicle can gain a cover save (Dare I say a Intervening) but it has to be covering 50% (So something large like MC maybe or some other special condition). Which would then lean towards rules being consistent in always needing 50%...

It also does state that Monstrous Creatures use vehicle rules for cover... on page 51.

So if the GW article on their web site is not to be trusted (I realize now that a good portion of my thinking has come from this along with 2 phone calls to red shirts (which yes I know they can't be trusted, just some how trying to work out how to play the game by the correct rules).

Re-reading the sections and with the pointing out "models" is stated in the vehicle cover section, you have me starting me down the road of doubting, I could be wrong.

-Jara


 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





The House that Peterbilt

Jara I think I see your argument. However you are missing a few key parts of the rules

At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) 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. If a squad is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 50% hidden from the majority of the firing models (do not count models that cannot hurt the vehicle)
-- emphasis mine.

So regardless of what the rule states for intervening models -- the 50% rule above makes it clear how vehicles can claim cover saves and that it is the only way to claim cover (eg obscured). The MC rules refer us to this very rule which thus invalidates your argument for MCs, regardless of whether they use the basic infantry rules in other cases (which is unwieldy but still workable). Glad you posted this though.

Edit -- Red beat me to it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/08/07 01:21:18


snoogums: "Just because something is not relavant doesn't mean it goes away completely."

Iorek: "Snoogums, you're right. Your arguments are irrelevant, and they sure as heck aren't going away." 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Vacaville, CA

winterman wrote:

Edit -- Red beat me to it.


Wouldn't be the 1st time

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."

-Joseph Stalin
 
   
Made in us
Deadly Dire Avenger





Aliso Viejo, CA - But wishing I was in Seattle

winterman wrote:Jara I think I see your argument. However you are missing a few key parts of the rules

At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) 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. If a squad is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 50% hidden from the majority of the firing models (do not count models that cannot hurt the vehicle)
-- emphasis mine.

So regardless of what the rule states for intervening models -- the 50% rule above makes it clear how vehicles can claim cover saves and that it is the only way to claim cover (eg obscured). The MC rules refer us to this very rule which thus invalidates your argument for MCs, regardless of whether they use the basic infantry rules in other cases (which is unwieldy but still workable). Glad you posted this though.

Edit -- Red beat me to it.


Yup, I think you're right Winterman (You and Red_lives and ConditionOfMan have convinced me).

Man our play group has been trying to play 5th ED and get the rules down, and it looks like we're still wrestling with it a bit. MC and cover came up in our last game.

Even with playing 1-2 games every week since release we're still not getting everything 100% yet. Thanks for helping me work this out!

-Jara

PS: It's good to know that GW's web site has examples that are just plain wrong AND a couple of the red shirts i've ask (I know not to trust them, but I still ask anyway) have gave out incorrect answers.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2008/08/07 02:03:39


 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Vacaville, CA

Glad i could be of some help, and what part of CA are you in?

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."

-Joseph Stalin
 
   
Made in us
Martial Arts Fiday






Nashville, TN

It's good to know that GW's web site has examples that are just plain wrong AND a couple of the red shirts i've ask (I know not to trust them, but I still ask anyway) have gave out incorrect answers.


take some solace in the fact that most of the battle reports (played by the actual game designers, no less) have something wrong ruleswise in them also.

Oh, and Redshirt= wrong answer in my experience. Ask them for vague rumors and price checks, not rules clarifications. Only Redshirt I've ever known to actually know the rules they were spouting....was me.

"Holy Sh*&, you've opened my eyes and changed my mind about this topic, thanks Dakka OT!"

-Nobody Ever

Proverbs 18:2

"CHEESE!" is the battlecry of the ill-prepared.

 warboss wrote:

GW didn't mean to hit your wallet and I know they love you, baby. I'm sure they won't do it again so it's ok to purchase and make up.


Albatross wrote:I think SlaveToDorkness just became my new hero.

EmilCrane wrote:Finecast is the new Matt Ward.

Don't mess with the Blade and Bolter! 
   
Made in us
Deadly Dire Avenger





Aliso Viejo, CA - But wishing I was in Seattle

Red_Lives wrote:Glad i could be of some help, and what part of CA are you in?


In the OC or Aliso Viejo :-)

 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Kommando





El Paso, Texas

Red and Winter are absolutely right. The vehicle cover section clearly states the necessity for 50% of the model to be hidden from view of the firer and the MC section states is follows the cover save rules like vehicles. Again, this should really be another thread if you are really confused, because this was thoroughly discussed a month ago in this thread and all the arguments have been made accordingly and everyone conceded upon this point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2008/08/09 03:46:20


Moz:
You: "Hold on, you rammed, that's not a tank shock"
Me: "Ok so what is a ram, lets look at the rules."
Rulebook: "A ram is a special kind of tank shock"
You: "So it's a tank shock until it hits a vehicle, and then it's a ram, not a tank shock, and then it goes back to being a tank shock later!"
Me: "Yeah it doesn't really say any of that in here, how about we just play by what's written in here?"  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: