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.

Yak, so do you think it's possible a 'magic cylinder' exists because there is no clarification of how to determine "..drawing LOS over the intervening element and ... firing through it"?

I see you're trying to get at something very specific, I'm just trying to pull out the real question that necessitated the poll mind you. I think I see what you're getting at, just wanting confirmation I suppose.

If that were the case, wouldn't it mean the TLOS GW is talking about, isn't TLOS at all in these situations? And does that really matter?

The second picture you show with the orks past the ruins would seriously disturb me as a player if someone claimed they received a cover save. To me, there is nothing to obstruct view to any of the orks.

I believe if you can use the laser pointer from the eyes of each gunner clearly over the intervening models onto the bottom of the target's torso without going inbetween models, then they should not be in cover

if you cannot do that, they get a cover save.

most of the time its easier to just let them have it, but sometimes its obvious like when you've got something on the 2nd floor of a cityfight building shooting downward

I hate grey areas like this. it depends on how flexible the two players are.

NaZ

A ... using a laser from each models shooting to the each of models being shot if any shooter doesn't get clear LOS model then that model get a cover save against all shots from that unit (people that can't shoot don't count) ... any models that can be clearly sighted by every one get no cover saves but the target unit can ask for a cut down save (but only if its between 30-90% already in cover)

Option B where intervening models are concerned.

UNLESS the firing model is something that's clearly and plainly taller than the intervening models. If the fire warrior had been a Crisis Suit then the Orks get no cover save.

Otherwise, the grots are still tall enough, imo. The height of the slaver is irrelevant.

As for the other example, the terrain, I don't think I would ask for a cover save if I were the Ork player. The Orks are in open ground and the FW is shooting through a huge gap in the terrain.

Answer:C

If the object is closer to the target it gets cover. If it's closer to the firer it doesn't get cover. If it is "exactly" inbetween roll a die, or just say it's cover.

This mucking about always hurts my brain. I find it curious that the 5th edition spends a lot of wordage telling you that your models are actually running, ducking and doing are sorts of willy-nilly things and then turn around and tell you to get a models eye view of what's going on, like the models were standing still, like models or something.

Went for A. Magic cylinder is bad, because it restricts 40k to a 2 dimensions game. But our models arent flat are they

I vote B (am I the only one?)

I reslise that rules state that A is the correct option. However, when you're both getting down over the table to see what you think can be seen, you're gonna end up having arguments with people over EXACTLY what can be seen, what can be blocked, and if guns or stupidly modelled banners count.

In the interests of sportsmanship, having a fun game, avoiding stupid arguments, and speeding things up generally, I would always give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and allow him the cover save. If they won't do the same for me, they're not someone I would want to play with...

(I WOULD use a laser pointer, but all that tells you is if there'a a LOS or not, so it isn't a huge advantage. Plus, a difference of a single mm when placing the laser point on the model's head can give a completely different result, furthering the possibility of arguments.)

A

In the first diagram, a line from the slaver's arm to the grot's arm on the right will cut through the boots of all the Lootas, so they are 'between the models' and get a cover save.

In the second diagram, the same line (between individual highest points) doesn't cut through the Lootas so they don't get a cover save.

In the first and second examples, is the firewarrior at the same elevation as the green skins?

If so, we do B. We assume models of the same size classification block LOS enough for cover if they are all all the same height terrain. Similarly, we assume that even if the woods/ruins are not modeled to be super high on the lowest part, firing straight across is sufficient for the save.

However, if the fire warrior was elevated, then it gets trickier. In the first case we probably would give the save, maybe at a -1. In the second, no save, since if the firewarrior was higher than the junk he is shooting across, he would have a great shot.

Now, that said, we usually play that the WALLS of a ruin give a 4+ save, and the rubble on the ground gives only 5+, mainly because my buildings have well defined walls, and essentially gravel otherwise. Nothing really in between.

"A" is closer, but in the second set of diagrams, the "over" should extend lower, down to the bottom peak in the middle.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:In the first diagram, a line from the slaver's arm to the grot's arm on the right will cut through the boots of all the Lootas, so they are 'between the models' and get a cover save.

In the second diagram, the same line (between individual highest points) doesn't cut through the Lootas so they don't get a cover save.

Huh? The two pictures are identical, only the colored representation changes. I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here.


And as I mentioned in the original post, whatever you personally use to determine the highest point of the model doesn't matter for this poll. Simply assume that the diagram presents the proper height for the firing model to see 'over' in the first example but be blocked in the second example.

The point is to describe what method you use to determine whether you are firing OVER or THROUGH an intervening unit.

Wehrkind wrote:In the first and second examples, is the firewarrior at the same elevation as the green skins?

If so, we do B. We assume models of the same size classification block LOS enough for cover if they are all all the same height terrain. Similarly, we assume that even if the woods/ruins are not modeled to be super high on the lowest part, firing straight across is sufficient for the save.

Again, as I mention in the original post:

For the illustrative diagrams below, please ignore any discrepancies in perspective between what is shown in the picture and what would be seen if a true 'model's eye view' was taken. Just assume that what the diagram illustrates is the proper perspective from the firing model's eye view.


Yes, the model is actually standing on a 2nd floor of a ruin, but that really isn't important. Just assume what the diagram illustrates is correct from a model's eye view.

Well, that was sort of my point, we fudge "model's eye view" a bit when it comes to area terrain since cramming it full fo crap enough to obscure reasonable usually means it doesn't fit models on a 25mm base well, let along vehicles. As a result, we pretty much assume obscured infantry when shooting level to level, but take a more "true view" approach when shooting from a higher level to a lower level.

A FTW!!

I voted A. I'd probably still give the Orks the save, since I couldn't be bothered bringing out the string to draw the exact lines.

I reslise that rules state that A is the correct option. However, when you're both getting down over the table to see what you think can be seen, you're gonna end up having arguments with people over EXACTLY what can be seen, what can be blocked, and if guns or stupidly modelled banners count.

That's why there is a rule allowing you to reduce a cover save by -1 if it's not clear.

Of course, that's another rule that can be abused, but if someone's claiming -1 all the time (regardless of whether it's valid or not) then I get the feeling they aren't in it for the sportsmanship.

I voted A, despite being a Nid player who would much rather have B.

The TLOS is in the rules for a reason, that it should be the models TLOS that counts.

I know that the poll in this instance says to forget that the FW is on 2nd level terrain and to work strictly from TLOS and the intervening grots, but when in a game (where I usually play a friend and his SM army) if his models that are firing are higher than mine and firing at a larger target behind a smaller one (warriors behind gaunts for example) I always concede no cover save (as in the above examples). It makes much more sense to me that the elevated position of a model would allow better target choice instead of actually nit-picking over whether or not (or indeed how much of) my models his firing models can see.

If the units being targeted are behind a unit of similar size (two units of warriors for example) then I generally say that the firing unit needs a greater than 45 degree angle downward from horizontal in order to not get a cover save.

Of course, we usually just fall back on common sense or a D6 roll. Much quicker.

I voted for A, but TBH, it doesn't come up that much (with model height), as to "fire over" a model, you'd have to be at least a full model's height above it.

The problem comes in where the defending player can make as much of deal about where you measure from on the firing model, as most of us would take a sight line on the tabletop from above the model's head. With a few exceptions (mostly in Vietnam footage and few hilarious shots of Taliban militia), I've never seen a soldier fire a weapon holding it 3 feet over his head (in scale).

necromancer back to the abyss!

 smart_alex wrote:
Voted C: I do not treat units as terrain. If you can see most of the models in a unit without touching another model as far as LOS is concerned then there is no cover saves.

With terrain if they are behind terrain then they get a cover save. Otherwise the issue would become way too complicated. I may be wrong about it but I thought that there was a diagram in the book that showed a model behind two trees and they still has a cover save even though they were not in the area terrain.

same but tlos for me must be blocked by a part of the terrain not just go over the base of said terrain

im going with option C.

That being in the case of the grots there is 2 boys that would get cover saves, so if you want to focus fire them then you can only hit the 3 without.

same thing again in the second diagrams.

now its basically i work the terrain and intervening models just like 8, except i allow for the individual models and focus fire

wow hols this is an old thread... i didnt even look at the dates

I voted option B.

If either of these situations came up in a real game, however, I would allow my opponent to decide whether the orks received a cover save. Seems more sportsmanlike in such a 'close call' situation. If my opponent leaves it up to me, however, I say option B.

It is actually a little humorous as this thread has had 'aaah necromancy' post almost 5 years ago and someone raised it again!

Indeed