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.

Arschbombe wrote:So by your reading a unit out of LOS will always get a save from SMS?

Unless it is barrage, or has another rule that lets it ignore COVER, yes.

As for rules?
Let's start general then and see.
pg 15 has the summation.
1. Check line of sight & pick a target. ("All models in the unit that can see at least one enemy model in the target unit may open fire." - This is the part SMS gets around)
2. Check range. (No issue.)
3. Roll to hit. (No issue.)
4. Roll to wound. (No issue.)
5. Take saving throws. (Saving throws usually derive. . . from being in cover. - edited for the only part we care about)
6. Remove casualties. (No issue.)

First off, SMS mentions only step 1.
Next page 21.
"When are models in Cover?"
When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view[NOTE: Not LOS] of the firer, the target model is in cover."

Should I nitpick more, or can you read the whole thing now?

Yes, in case you're wondering, the SMS does suck per RaW. It can fire at non-LOS targets, but kirsanth is correct in pointing out that they get cover saves.

Seems pretty obvious to me that you get a cover save. There is so much emphasis on the "if they are touching" line, but it's pretty obvious just by the sentence before it:

"The target can count the benefits of cover they are in"

kirsanth they would be obscured from the devilfish if they were shooting straight using LOS, and going by that statement the SMS wouldn't be able to shoot them.

I would agree with you about them being obscured if I were firing with LOS, the SMS doesn't need line of sight so it can never be obscured as the drones can see them above/around the tank.

Cover uses the view of the model (along with other factors, like area terrain and wargear).
LOS uses the view of the model.

The similarities end there. The fact that you're not using LOS has no bearing on cover unless otherwise specified (as in barrage rules).

Tyron wrote: if they were shooting straight using LOS, and going by that statement the SMS wouldn't be able to shoot them.

The first part "If they were shooting straight" is 100% fluff.
The second . . .SMS would indeed not be able to shoot them, if it did not have a rule saying LOS was not needed to engage.

Exaclty so it is impossible for the SMS to have obscured targets. The section you referenced is for the purposes of units who need to shoot using LOS.

No, it was all the rules for shooting.
Really, I am not allowed, nor inclined to reprint the whole section. Read it.

I have done and it is refereing to LOS as it states the unit would be obscured. But how can that be if it doesn't need LOS?

kirsanth wrote:
"When are models in Cover?"
When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view[NOTE: Not LOS] of the firer, the target model is in cover."

Again note, this still does not refer to LOS.
And still, if the SMS said, "only", "instead", "barrage", or even something like "this ignores cover saves" like many weapons do, you would have a point. Until then, I will wait until simply repeating myself does not answer your question.

Arschbombe wrote:So by your reading a unit out of LOS will always get a save from SMS?

Yes

Tyron wrote:Exaclty so it is impossible for the SMS to have obscured targets. The section you referenced is for the purposes of units who need to shoot using LOS.

This is not true. Being able to target a unit without LOS (normally you need LOS to at least one model) does not mean that they are not obscured.

You are confusing the rules for targeting with the rules for shooting.

Normally a unit may not target a unit that is out of LOS. However, a SMS may target a unit that is out of LOS.

Seperately,

A unit that is out of LOS is obscured from the firer (p21 of the BGB) and so is granted a cover save.

This is new in 5th edition. Previously you had to actually be standing in or touching area terrain to gain a cover save, but now rules have been introduced that mean that if your target obscured (either partially of fully) from you it is granted a cover save.

kirsanth, that reference is asigned for units who need to use LOS to clarify who get's cover, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

It doesn't need "only", "instead", "barrage", or even something like "this ignores cover saves". It clearly states it doesn't need LOS as the missiles go around any objects in the way.

I think you're getting a little confused and think I believe units in area terrain shouldn't get a cover save. I believe they do, I also believe units out in the open behind a tank but NOT touching it should not get a cover save, if they were touching the tank by all means take your save.

"Previously you had to actually be standing in or touching area terrain to gain a cover save"

This still applies in 5th.

kirsanth wrote:
Next page 21.
"When are models in Cover?"
When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view[NOTE: Not LOS] of the firer, the target model is in cover."

Ok, I see your point now and how you came to your conclusion.

Should I nitpick more, or can you read the whole thing now?

Please do. It suits you.

Night Lords wrote:There is so much emphasis on the "if they are touching" line, but it's pretty obvious just by the sentence before it:
"The target can count the benefits of cover they are in"

This plus Kirsanth's quotes brought the disagreement into focus for me. When I read the rule from the Tau codex the wording "cover they are in or touching" is what led me to my interpretation. Because you can't touch the obscuration that the main rules refer to, I read that line as "physical cover they are in or touching."

LOS!=Cover. Therefore ignore LOS!= ignore Cover.

No, in 5th edition I do not have to stand in area terrain to get a cover save. I can stand behind a unit (friendly or enemy) and gain a cover save.

Arschbombe wrote:Please do. It suits you.

Thank you, I do it for a living.
I am pretty sure that it has been covered in this case, however.

Tyron wrote:It doesn't need "only", "instead", "barrage", or even something like "this ignores cover saves".

Agreed. The codex clearly identifies the two specific instances where cover applies (i.e., target in area terrain, target touching other object that would provide cover).

Are there more ways in the BRB to acquire a cover save? Certainly--but remember, Codex trumps BRB. In this case, the definition of 'what provides cover' is limited to the specific circumstances outlined in the SMS entry in the Codex, rather than the broader guidelines in the BRB. In effect, the codex ignores the normal procedures for determining cover and substitutes them with a much narrower definition.

We really need a facepalm ork.
Still.


I am baffled that has not been covered.
(The facepalm ork, because CatPeeler's comment was.)

CatPeeler wrote:

Tyron wrote:It doesn't need "only", "instead", "barrage", or even something like "this ignores cover saves".

Agreed. The codex clearly identifies the two specific instances where cover applies (i.e., target in area terrain, target touching other object that would provide cover).

.

It does not say area terrain. It says:


"The target can count the benefits of cover they are in"

A unit behind a vehicle is in cover. They benefit from the save.

Am I correct in understanding that your dismissal is based on your claim that the model's view is somehow different from the model's LOS?

How is the model's view determined? By looking at the target from the model's point of view.

How is TLOS determined? By looking at the target from the model's point of view.

Given that these are identical, it's quite a stretch to infer that the SMS entry's mention of being "in cover" refers to anything other than area terrain.

"A unit behind a vehicle is in cover. They benefit from the save. "

Only if it is obscured from the the TLOS of the firer which it isn't as the SMS doesn't need LOS so it can't be obscured.

Was your plast post aimed at me CatPeeler

The SMS does not need TLOS to fire. You still check it, per the rules. And you still use TLOS to determine cover.

P. 23, the figure with all the orks. Groups B and E clearly indicate that they are "in cover" (or could be) because the view is obscured. I believe that this means Night Lord is entirely correct about the way the rules play out.

The problem with your example is all units in that picture require TLOS to shoot their targets, the SMS doesn't and therefore no unit can be obscured and wouldnt get a save.

If they were hugging the rear of the truk then they would get a save no question (represents them hiding under the truk ect).

OK guys.

LOS is used to determine whether or not a unit can fire at a given target. Period. Full stop.
End of story.

Ignoring LOS does not in any way or fashion ignore Cover Saves.
LOS is only checked for determining which models can be engaged in the shooting phase.
Also from cover saves:
"units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw."
"Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots."

The SMS states "The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not". It does not "ignore LOS"
.
Note: The guys behind the vehicle are a hidden target.
Note: Those same guys can be shot with SMS as LOS is not needed to choose them as a target.
Note: SMS does not mention it ignores cover, in fact it mentions additional ways to gain cover.
Note: It does not matter at all the "reason" the weapon ignores LOS, simply ignore whether LOS exists, because the rules say to.
Note: The rules still do not say to ignore the part where you determine cover.

edited for redundancy

Catpeeler and Tyron,

I think you're right on the RAI, but Kirsanth and the others have the right of it on RAW as it stands today. The reasoning goes like this:

SMS Rule: "The target can count the benefits of cover they are in" Ignore for the moment the next phrase "or are touching..."

Page 21 of the BRB:
"When are models 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."

So by RAW any obscured unit is in cover for the purposes of the SMS rule. I think you're reading the SMS rule the way I was because of the second phrase " or are touching if the cover lies between..." You think that the cover in the first part of the rule (cover you are in) must be the same kind of cover in the second part of the rule (cover you can touch). I agree this is the RAI, but it is not the RAW.

kirsanth wrote:OK guys.

LOS is used to determine whether or not a unit can fire at a given target. Period. Full stop.
End of story.

Ignoring LOS does not in any way or fashion ignore Cover Saves.
LOS is only checked for determining which models can be engaged in the shooting phase.
Also from cover saves:
"units in or behind cover receive a cover saving throw."
"Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots."

The SMS states "The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not". It does not "ignore LOS"
.
Note: The guys behind the vehicle are a hidden target.
Note: Those same guys can be shot with SMS as LOS is not needed to choose them as a target.
Note: SMS does not mention it ignores cover, in fact it mentions additional ways to gain cover.
Note: It does not matter at all the "reason" the weapon ignores LOS, simply ignore whether LOS exists, because the rules say to.
Note: The rules still do not say to ignore the part where you determine cover.

edited for redundancy

This is correct. TLOS is used to determine which units can be targeted and which are obscured, and there recieve a cover save.

The rules about targeting are separate from the rules about cover saves dispite the fact that they use the same game system.

So the SMS breaks down into two different stages

--------------

You are able to target a unit with a SMS that is out of your LOS.

--------------

A unit that is out of your LOS is obscured

Units that are obscured gain a cover save

--------------

If you fire the SMS at a unit that is not obscured it is not able to gain a cover save.

kirsanth wrote:Note: SMS does not mention it ignores cover, in fact it mentions additional ways to gain cover.

I disagree. It doesn't say, "in addition to the normal cover rules..." It simply says units may utilize cover in these two ways. Period. Full stop.

------

The point of contention, as I see it, is the way the SMS entry is written: "...the target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching..." In the quote above, I read "cover" as referring to a terrain piece, not an abstraction defined by the rules. Therefore, "cover you are in" is not the same as the state of being "in cover," and I'll try to explain why.

Swap "ruins" for cover, and you'll see what I mean. "...the target can count the benefit of [ruins] they are in, or are touching..." This works just as well with woods/craters/wreckage/etc., or even things like "swimming pool," or "wal-mart." These are all objects, these all mesh neatly with how the sentence is structured.

On the other hand, swap in any rules-defined abstract state of being, (i.e., 'gone to ground that they are in, or are touching", "falling back that they are in, or are touching") and it falls apart. Now let's look at wargear. Pop smoke (or buy a disruption pod, etc), and your vehicle is 'obscured'... but try and swap that into the phrase. "...obscured that you are in, or are touching...."

In short, the phrasing in the SMS entry is structured such that "cover" can only be treated as a tangible, physical object. The only cover related objects in the game are area terrain (woods, ruins, etc) and linear terrain (walls, barricades, etc). It's no coincidence that those are also the two specific ways that the SMS allows a cover save.

This isn't just RAI, it's RAW--because of how the sentence was written. If the SMS entry said, "The target can count the benefits of being 'in cover,' and may also be considered 'in cover' if they are touching a terrain piece which lies between them and the firer," your argument would be entirely valid. Because the sentence was structured as it was, however, "cover" can only refer to an object, not a state of being.

Every rule is in addition to the normal rules unless it specifies that it replaces normal rules.

ajfirecracker wrote:Every rule is in addition to the normal rules unless it specifies that it replaces normal rules.

Not really. If that were so, the same wargear/vehicles/equipment would work the same way for every army that share them (smoke launchers, machine spirit, chimera fire points, force weapons, etc).

Actually, CatPeeler, those rules do override the regular rules via Specific>General.

The SMS does not contradict the rules for normal cover. And even if it did, the wording does not limit what cover saves may be taken, it grants the unit cover saves.

And even if it did limit the saves that may be taken, 5e uses the term "in cover" to denote a unit that gets cover due to intervening models or terrain, so the unit would still get cover from the SMS rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the only one of those that has general rules is force weapons, and there the GK ones are different only because they're more specific. I believe Smokes say to use codex rules in case of a conflict.

"A unit that is out of your LOS is obscured

Units that are obscured gain a cover save"

For them to be obscured I would need TLOS, SMS doesn't need it so it's impossible to be obscured.

Again, how can a target I physically can't see be obscured? They would be hidden instead, luckily my SMS doesn't need TLOS and allows me to fire at a unit as if I could see them clearly, even says in the SMS description.