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 have to agree with Democratus here. The rest of you sound like wishful thinkers...

>>True. I agree with everything you say here. However, the rules for the SMS never say that you do not get cover for being behind terrain/other units. What they do is add a new condition where you get cover. For a codex to contradict the rulebook it must have language that specifically does so.

In the rules, cover is given to units obscured in LoS from the firer.

SMS ignores LoS. Therefore it ignores cover.

The SMS rules in the codex add that units in or near some kinds of cover get a save anyway, for example because they are within area terrain that grants a variety of cover opportunities such as overhead tree branches.

Democratus is right, the RAW here never clearly indicates that those are the only saves that are allowed to be taken against it so one can only assume that normal saves are allowed, as unfortunate as that is.

There's no doubt in my mind that the RAI of it was to only grant those saves allowing other forms of cover to be ignored, but RAI isn't something you debate on a forum, it's something you discuss with a tournament organiser or a casual opponent beforehand to see if they agree.

The wording of the codex is unclear because it was written for 4e.

There is no BRB rule that says cover saves are disallowed when LOS is not required.

There is no Tau codex rule saying cover saves are ignored by the SMS. BTW- isn't there a different Tau weapn that explicitly states cover saves are ignored?

I am in Democratus' camp also. However, rather than sit and argue during a game, split the difference and play it as a -1 cover save as an unclear situation. I play games for fun. Win or lose the mission, if you're not enjoying yourself playing you've already lost.

utan wrote:BTW- isn't there a different Tau weapn that explicitly states cover saves are ignored?

Yes, the Airbursting Fragmentation Projector, but that's a very different case because it is meant to be more in line with the flamer rule for ignoring cover saves. It's not about a lack of LOS or anything.

Well, there you has it! If something ignores cover saves, it specifically says so! If not, then not!

Democratus wrote:
I realize that this is an artifact of the codex being written for 4th edition. But that doesn't change the text of the rules or what they mean. This was also the accepted interpretation at Chicago last weekend. So those who plan on tournament play should at least be aware of the RAW and ask tournament organizers before the game.

I disagree. It totally changed the text of the rules and/or what they mean. The rule from the Codex was completely lost in translation to the current 5th edition.

If I played in a tournament where a player took that cover save, I would not protest, but would definitely put said player in the "one of those guys" category.

Drunkspleen wrote:Democratus is right, the RAW here never clearly indicates that those are the only saves that are allowed to be taken against it so one can only assume that normal saves are allowed, as unfortunate as that is.

There's no doubt in my mind that the RAI of it was to only grant those saves allowing other forms of cover to be ignored, but RAI isn't something you debate on a forum, it's something you discuss with a tournament organiser or a casual opponent beforehand to see if they agree.

You cannot claim a LOS cover from a weapon that doesn't require LOS. Plain and simple. To say you get a LOS cover from a weapon that doesn't require LOS is just plain non-sensical no matter how you try and argue it.

utan wrote:Well, there you has it! If something ignores cover saves, it specifically says so! If not, then not!

I think you are oversimplifying the matter because the point of the rule in 4th edition was to allow 2 specific situations to grant a save but not other ones. It would have been confusing to say "The Smart Missile System ignores cover saves, you can take cover saves against the smart missile system if you are in area terrain or directly touching any terrain piece"

@fullheadofhair: According to the wording in the BRB you can. "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."

utan wrote:Well, there you has it! If something ignores cover saves, it specifically says so! If not, then not!

The argument isn't properly whether SMS ignores cover saves, it's whether cover (which works by blocking LoS) can grant a save against a weapon that ignore LoS. The way I phrased the original thread title is misleading.

Drunkspleen wrote:

utan wrote:Well, there you has it! If something ignores cover saves, it specifically says so! If not, then not!

I think you are oversimplifying the matter because the point of the rule in 4th edition was to allow 2 specific situations to grant a save but not other ones. It would have been confusing to say "The Smart Missile System ignores cover saves, you can take cover saves against the smart missile system if you are in area terrain or directly touching any terrain piece"

@fullheadofhair: According to the wording in the BRB you can. "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."

The target isn't obscured for LOS because LOS isn't an issue. That step in the shooting process is ignored.

but the codex then defines when you can get a cover save, i.e you have to actually be in the cover etc. If stood behind a building you don't get it. Isn't that what "smart" is meant to mean?

fullheadofhair wrote:You cannot claim a LOS cover from a weapon that doesn't require LOS. Plain and simple.

Page reference, or this is simply opinion.

Barrage weapons can attack units out of LOS. But they have special rules that use the hole in the blast marker to determine cover. No execption is written for the SMS.

To say you get a LOS cover from a weapon that doesn't require LOS is just plain non-sensical no matter how you try and argue it.

The rules don't make sense in many places. Killing 9 models completely out of range/LOS because a single model can be seen doesn't make sense. But it's the rules. The "makes sense" defense doesn't carry more weight than the written rules.

Didn't you get a save in 4th edition also if someone shot through terrain? How was this never an issue before?

no... in 4th ed the SMS ignored cover, because of the codex overriding the mnain rules book.
*EDIT* not ignored cover like a flamer... but ignored cover unless you were in it, or touching it (if it lied between you the the firer)

but now, magicaly, you get a cover save form them.

i guses it is nice to know that marines will get a cover save from a basilisk firing indirect though. as it would be firing through terrein.

Envy89 wrote:no... in 4th ed the SMS ignored cover, because of the codex overriding the mnain rules book.
*EDIT* not ignored cover like a flamer... but ignored cover unless you were in it, or touching it (if it lied between you the the firer)

but now, magicaly, you get a cover save form them.

i guses it is nice to know that marines will get a cover save from a basilisk firing indirect though. as it would be firing through terrein.

No, the rules state exactly how cover is determined for the Basilisk. You determine weather or not you get a save based on where the shell lands.

frenrik wrote:Didn't you get a save in 4th edition also if someone shot through terrain? How was this never an issue before?

Because 4th edition didn't use true LoS to determine if you had a clear shot at the target.

Thankfully the rules have been simplified by the introduction of TLoS, thus preventing a lot of arguments.

Please god let them FAQ this as it's the only way the clear RAI will get used. I think we all know the SMS isn't supposed to grant cover saves except for it's two exclusions, but the rules have changed in the BGB, and as it stands you get cover.

what do you mean as it stands you get a cover save.... the tau codex conterdicts the rules.

the target may claim the benfits of cover if they are A. in it, or B. behind it AND touching it.

the dex sets conditions that MUST be met in order to get a cover save.

Envy89 wrote:what do you mean as it stands you get a cover save.... the tau codex conterdicts the rules.

the target may claim the benfits of cover if they are A. in it, or B. behind it AND touching it.

the dex sets conditions that MUST be met in order to get a cover save.

Envy, you have it backwards.


The rulebook provides the core rules on how models get a cover save. These rules are in effect unless a weapon specifically says that it ignores cover saves.

The SMS rules were written under a different rules set (4th edition) that was written slightly differently on how to determine if a unit got a cover save.

The net result is that the strict RAW don't support the idea that SMS ever ignore cover saves.


However, it is a case of a pretty darn clear RAI and I don't think you'll find very many people (or tournament judges) who will actually try to enforce this position.

yakface

i know there are core rules on how a model can get a save. what i am pointing out, is that in the tau dex the sms wording allows for saves to be taken for intervining terrein. but the codex also set a condition that must be met in order to obtain that save.

it dose not say "this weapon ignors cover saves" because that would be a little silly. but it dose set conditions that must be met in order to get the cover save.



this is exactly like the guy who was trying to agrure about his fearless termies.

yes, the deciver rules say you have to take a leadership test even if the unit would automatical pass such tests.... ok, so i take the test and fail... the deciver rules dont say i have to make a fallback like normal. so nothing happens to my fearless unit because in the main rules book it says fearless units never have to fallback.

Envy89 wrote:yakface

i know there are core rules on how a model can get a save. what i am pointing out, is that in the tau dex the sms wording allows for saves to be taken for intervining terrein. but the codex also set a condition that must be met in order to obtain that save.

it dose not say "this weapon ignors cover saves" because that would be a little silly. but it dose set conditions that must be met in order to get the cover save.



this is exactly like the guy who was trying to agrure about his fearless termies.

yes, the deciver rules say you have to take a leadership test even if the unit would automatical pass such tests.... ok, so i take the test and fail... the deciver rules dont say i have to make a fallback like normal. so nothing happens to my fearless unit because in the main rules book it says fearless units never have to fallback.

That is how I read it. The codex in this case gives the ways you can get a cover save.

I wonder, seeing that GW has just posted 5E FAQs for most armies, what's the odds they'll post fresh ones clearing up all of these little hinkies?

Well, they have posted 3 updates to the SM FAQ in the last few weeks. Maybe they have truly changed their ways and will be very responsive.

Hope springs eternal.

So i was reading this and i want to point out a couple of things. Before i do i want to say that i play tau and i really want SMS not to count cover.....


That said SMS dose not ignore cover. i will quote the rules

page 21
When are models in cover
When any part of the model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover..."

note that it does not mention LOS at all. what it say's is point of view of the firer. Now it is true that what the codex is trying to say is that cover is only granted when someone is in area terrain but sadly the wording does not hold up for 5th ed.

Like so many things though it comes does to who is judging your games, always ask about things like this and you will always be happy.

As far as people claiming that the codex replaces the rules for cover you are wrong. Area terrain is covered in a different part of the rules(page 22 under exceptions), as such even if it did replace the area terrain rules it would not replace the point of view aspect of granting cover.

Old, old thread.

Please start a new topic, if the subject warrants it.