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.

Therefore RAW would be Option E with two exclusive options

For example 1, the Grots would receive a cover save from the prow and right heavy bolter but not the left one.

However, this interpretation is unwieldy and unnecessarily time consuming, as it would force is almost all cases treating each weapon as separate for cover save determination. E.G Landraider sponsons almost never have LOS to the entire or even half of the unit. I gander this would apply to all sponson weapons.

Therefore, the only logical, practical, and realistic option in determining cover saves for units partially in cover from the rule "Models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover for this purpose." and multi weaponed vehicles is to treat LOS to the unit as the sum of all a vehicle's weapons. So in the case of example 1 the grots would not receive a cover save unless the sum of all LOS drawn from the Russ's heavy bolters is less than half of the units models.

Example 2 is cut and dry. The space marine unit would receive the cover save as per RAW and GAP.

There you go.

It did seem a bit illogical to think that models that can't be seen are not obscured.

purpleboxbluebox wrote:However, this interpretation is unwieldy and unnecessarily time consuming, as it would force is almost all cases treating each weapon as separate for cover save determination.

I'm not seeing a problem there... It's what we do with every other unit. You determine how many firers have unobstructed LOS, and determine cover saves from there. The only difference for vehicles is that the multiple weapons firing are all on the same vehicle. Since they all determine LOS from their own mounting, they would be treated exactly the same as any other unit firing multiple weapons.

insaniak wrote:

purpleboxbluebox wrote:However, this interpretation is unwieldy and unnecessarily time consuming, as it would force is almost all cases treating each weapon as separate for cover save determination.

I'm not seeing a problem there... It's what we do with every other unit. You determine how many firers have unobstructed LOS, and determine cover saves from there. The only difference for vehicles is that the multiple weapons firing are all on the same vehicle. Since they all determine LOS from their own mounting, they would be treated exactly the same as any other unit firing multiple weapons.

Incorrect. It is not what we do for every other unit. We take the majority of a units LOS for determining cover saves. When a unit with different weapons fires each weapon is not treated separately for cover save determination. "Since they all determine LOS from their own mounting, they would be treated exactly the same as any other unit firing multiple weapons." Incorrect. Vehicles have a separate rule for cases in which different weapons would receive different cover save determination. In cases as this, each weapon is treated as coming from a separate source. You missed the point I was making. I was advocating ignoring the RAW in cases of some weapons not having LOS to at least half the unit and treating the LOS as coming from a single source.

purpleboxbluebox wrote: When a unit with different weapons fires each weapon is not treated separately for cover save determination.

Nor do we do that for vehicles. You determine cover from each of the firers, and award a cover save to the unit based on that.

Vehicles have a separate rule for cases in which different weapons would receive different cover save determination. In cases as this, each weapon is treated as coming from a separate source.

What are you basing that on?

The rules for 'Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight' say (rulebook, pg 58): "Just like infantry, vehicles need to be able to draw a line of sight to their targets in order to shoot at them. When firing a vehicle's weapons, point them against the target and then trace the line of sight from each weapons' mounting and along its barrel, to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models. If the target happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicle's weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit."

The last sentence. This lends to the interpretation that in such a case the weapon is treated as coming from a separate source or unit. I and I assume you are advocating against this interpretation and instead treating the vehicle as a singular unit in all cases of cover save determination.

So why wouldn't the marines get a cover save, are not 50% out of line of sight from the heavy bolter and so deserve cover saves for being so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Yeah, that was one of the specific changes in 5th edition... Leman Russes and old-style Predators have had a 180 degree fire arc on their sponsons since 2nd edition, despite the models not actually being capable of it. 5th edition specifically limited it to the physical traverse range of the weapon.

So a redeemer can't shoot at a 180 degree angle can it

purpleboxbluebox wrote:...as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit."

purpleboxbluebox wrote:The last sentence. This lends to the interpretation that in such a case the weapon is treated as coming from a separate source or unit.

How are you getting from 'separate model in a normal unit' to 'separate unit'...?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey elder wrote:So a redeemer can't shoot at a 180 degree angle can it

It can fire in whatever arc the weapons can physically turn.

insaniak wrote:

purpleboxbluebox wrote:...as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit."

purpleboxbluebox wrote:The last sentence. This lends to the interpretation that in such a case the weapon is treated as coming from a separate source or unit.

How are you getting from 'separate model in a normal unit' to 'separate unit'...?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey elder wrote:So a redeemer can't shoot at a 180 degree angle can it

It can fire in whatever arc the weapons can physically turn.

I said it could lend to that interpretation. I was simply addressing such an instance which could arise in the case of people chossing B and C.

purpleboxbluebox wrote:I said it could lend to that interpretation.

How? It very clearly says to treat them as multiple firers from a single unit.

insaniak wrote:

purpleboxbluebox wrote:I said it could lend to that interpretation.

How? It very clearly says to treat them as multiple firers from a single unit.

From words many interpretations. It is prudent to address the opposing view. Though I would take much pleasure in pointless speculation with you over a play style both you and I would not play ourselves, the OP specifically asked such rule discussions to not take place in this thread. If you care so much open another thread and I will argue you forever on how others could view the rules.

First: to me it seems absurd that a unit directly in front of a vehicle gets a cover save because one of the side sponsoon cannot see all the unit...
Second: I did not find any rule saying that if you're out of LOS you gain a cover save... simply the enemy cannot shoot at you... (and now you're going to say "you target a unit as a whole you cannot target only models that are visible... but this is absurd IMHO... targeting only visible enemies seems to me the logical behaviour of any tank crew...)

So I voted A... every other option is RAW madness IMHO

Grey elder wrote:So a redeemer can't shoot at a 180 degree angle can it

Insaniak wrote:It can fire in whatever arc the weapons can physically turn.

Fantastic now I have to go PHYSICALLY break my turrets and re pin them so the can fire 180 degrees yay.

purpleboxbluebox wrote:From words many interpretations. It is prudent to address the opposing view. .

Only where there atually is an opposing view. Making up an invalid interpretation just for the sake of argument is a pointless waste of everybody's time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey elder wrote:Fantastic now I have to go PHYSICALLY break my turrets and re pin them so the can fire 180 degrees yay.

If you're talking about doing that in order to increase the weapon's fire arc, I wouldn't recommend it unless you want to annoy people.
If it's just because you have glued them in place and they don't physically turn, the fire arc rules cover that...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

punkow wrote:Second: I did not find any rule saying that if you're out of LOS you gain a cover save...

The applicable rule has been mentioned a couple of times so far. It's in the first paragraph of the 'Units Partially in Cover' section.

insaniak wrote:

purpleboxbluebox wrote:From words many interpretations. It is prudent to address the opposing view. .

Only where there atually is an opposing view. Making up an invalid interpretation just for the sake of argument is a pointless waste of everybody's time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey elder wrote:Fantastic now I have to go PHYSICALLY break my turrets and re pin them so the can fire 180 degrees yay.

If you're talking about doing that in order to increase the weapon's fire arc, I wouldn't recommend it unless you want to annoy people.
If it's just because you have glued them in place and they don't physically turn, the fire arc rules cover that...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

punkow wrote:Second: I did not find any rule saying that if you're out of LOS you gain a cover save...

The applicable rule has been mentioned a couple of times so far. It's in the first paragraph of the 'Units Partially in Cover' section.

So is arguing in a thread where the OP asked that there not be.

I voted E, but after reexamining the rules pertaining to this issue, I found that by RaW, both units get a cover save. I had originally believed something else, but if I could would change my vote to B. This question is covered in the rules quite well, and I believe that it makes the most sense in terms of HIWPi as well.

In my opinion, this is a pretty tough decision. So, I think that I would do this:

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)
A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

Yeah? No?

Okay....

I actually think that I have always played it as option A simply because I hate getting down and trying to look at all of the sponsons' "arcs of sight" and all that jazz. It is just too much work and no one at my shop really cares. However, from looking at the diagrams and a re-reading of the rules, I think option B is actually correct even though it is 100% dumb and makes zero sense in my opinion. Just more evidence of GW's gakky rules.

EDIT:

Now that I think about it, even if option B is correct, I would still play it as option A simply because the rules are so stupid that it blows my mind that guys out in the open get cover saves.

insaniak wrote:
And yeah, I would also love to hear an explanation from those voting for A.

We've had enough responses now that I feel comfortable presenting my opinion.

I voted for choice 'A' and here is why:


The rules for firing with vehicles and how to determine LOS are ridiculously brief...basically being made up of a single paragraph and then a page talking about arc of sight on vehicles which is really of little use since they stopped attempting to define how weapons on vehicles are mounted anymore despite the fact that the rulebook said they would.

So anyway, when it comes to determining things like cover saves from a firing vehicle, we essentially have to reference back to the main rules for infantry units shooting, and as with many places in the vehicle rules, this is where any clear way to play falls down.

The first problem is...what exactly is 'arc of sight' on a vehicle? It definitely isn't 'line of sight' for a vehicle but rather a description explaining some guidelines on how far a weapon barrel is supposed to be able to pivot. To actually draw line of sight form a firing vehicle the rules do tell us that we're supposed to pivot the weapon towards the target and then draw line of sight down the barrel to the target and see if the target is obscured by anything (hence giving it cover).


The problem is, 'arc of sight' means you are technically unable to draw line of sight to any targets that are out of the 'arc of sight' because you can't actually turn the barrel to that point to check line of sight...again technically you can't even definitively say that these models are in or out of line of site, because you are simply unable to follow the rules to make this check.

But assuming we can all agree that models which are out of 'arc of sight' by default are also out of 'line of sight' does this mean that they are actually in cover?

The most damning piece of evidence to suggest that this is the case is what I posted at the top of this thread in the section for 'units partially in cover' which basically says that any models in a unit that are completely out of line of sight are considered to be in cover.

But the problem is, these models aren't actually being obscured by any cover. In EVERY other situation in the game, a model that is getting a cover save for being out of line of sight is doing so because he is completely obscured by either a model or a piece of terrain, and therefore we know what cover save he is supposed to receive (the cover save granted by the thing he is behind).

With the case of a model simply being out of a vehicle 'arc of sight' there is literally nothing between the firing weapon and the target. It has been argued that the vehicle itself is obscuring the target, and that is certainly a fencepost that can be used to as a basis to play that way, but the fact is the rules do not clearly show this to be the case because again, the 'line of sight' of the firing weapon is NOT being obscured by the vehicle in many cases, it is simply a case that the barrel cannot pivot far enough for line of sight to even be checked.

Because of this grey area in the rules, it opens the door for people to genuinely wonder how exactly they are supposed to play the situation. I think that anytime the rules are even the slightest bit unclear, it leads people to tend to use their own 'common sense' as a fall back and for most people I think the idea of a unit seemingly standing completely in the open getting a cover save just doesn't seem 'right'.

In fact, I don't think I've ever played a game where someone asked me to check to see if a unit could get a cover save from a vehicle's weapons based only on the fact that the firing vehicle itself was potentially blocking the view to some of the target models. I recently heard some people making the argument however, so I really wanted to see what percentage of people are playing it what way.

At the end of the day I'm fine playing it either way as long as we're both on the same page, but if I have my choice because of the foggy nature of the vehicle shooting rules I tend to fall back on the more laid back approach of simply saying that although 'arc of fire' determines what UNITS a vehicle's weapons may fire at, when it comes to actually determining cover saves, that a vehicle itself does not count as an 'other' model and therefore enemy models obscured by it cannot use that fact to say that they are in cover.

I agree with Yak. In essence, the rules suck and the option B is pretty close to the RAW, but it is unwieldy and impractical in my opinion.

yakface wrote:

insaniak wrote:
And yeah, I would also love to hear an explanation from those voting for A.

We've had enough responses now that I feel comfortable presenting my opinion.

I voted for choice 'A' and here is why:

The first problem is...what exactly is 'arc of sight' on a vehicle? It definitely isn't 'line of sight' for a vehicle but rather a description explaining some guidelines on how far a weapon barrel is supposed to be able to pivot. To actually draw line of sight form a firing vehicle the rules do tell us that we're supposed to pivot the weapon towards the target and then draw line of sight down the barrel to the target and see if the target is obscured by anything (hence giving it cover).

But... the weapons Arc of Sight defines what targets are in that weapon's Line of Sight. The analogy is almost identical to a space marine facing out the window of a ruin. He has a clear LoS in front of him, but he has walls to his sides. A unit of grots could be stretched out in front of him, and he has a clear line of sight to 3 of them, but all the others are blocked because the space marine effectively has no periphrial vision.

yakface wrote:The problem is, 'arc of sight' means you are technically unable to draw line of sight to any targets that are out of the 'arc of sight' because you can't actually turn the barrel to that point to check line of sight...again technically you can't even definitively say that these models are in or out of line of site, because you are simply unable to follow the rules to make this check.

At this point you're essentially arguing that the BRB is contradicting itself by asking you to draw LoS to targets that a gun sponson isn't physically capable of doing. I think the argument that makes more sense is that if the gun isn't physically capable of pointing at a target, then that target is out of LoS (and may be subject to the rules for a squad being in partial cover)

yakface wrote:
But assuming we can all agree that models which are out of 'arc of sight' by default are also out of 'line of sight' does this mean that they are actually in cover?

The most damning piece of evidence to suggest that this is the case is what I posted at the top of this thread in the section for 'units partially in cover' which basically says that any models in a unit that are completely out of line of sight are considered to be in cover.

Absolutely.

yakface wrote:
But the problem is, these models aren't actually being obscured by any cover. In EVERY other situation in the game, a model that is getting a cover save for being out of line of sight is doing so because he is completely obscured by either a model or a piece of terrain, and therefore we know what cover save he is supposed to receive (the cover save granted by the thing he is behind).

The "cover" is the Land Raider itself, since some weapons are not able to draw LoS to the target.

Replace the Land Raider with a ruin shaped like a Land Raider. Now, put a space marine at all of the locations where the Land Raider's weapons would be, such that the Space Marines have the same limited field of vision as the weapon arcs on the Land Raider.

Now work out cover.

I think the common misunderstanding from this rule stems from the fact that people WANT to draw LoS from the LAND RAIDER ITSELF. Then they want to determine COVER from the individual guns. It seems more intuitive to say that "The Land Raider can see you, but you have cover from its heavy bolt gun because you're hiding behind a hedge".

However, you never actually draw LoS from the vehicle itself. People still feel like they should do this, which is why I think the way the rules say to do it "feels" wrong.

The other contributing factor is the rule that says a firing unit ignores members of its own squad I think. People want to apply that rule to vehicles.

I voted B. Both of the units in question have more than half of their models out of the line of fire of the guns. Seems straightforward to me.

You can't argue with what people are voting, even if they are technically wrong.

It's what I said earlier, that it does seem odd that a unit can get cover when it's actually in the open -- this being a consequence of the way the unit/cover/LoS rules work in the game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding the issue of what level of cover should be given, in my experience people tend to treat everything as 4+ cover so 4+ would be given.

Option A was how I always played because I play bugs and don't ever have firing arcs different from LOS now that I actually have to think about it, B seems more solid rules-wise and that is what I voted.

Option e, does the top gun not swivel? Fire that as well and then 50% will be able to see more than 50% and they get no cover.
Otherwise if a leman russ is actually just a motorised cannon, option b

Read the scenario; the turret is non functional

Read the scenario; the turret is non functional

Read what he wrote: He isn't talking about the weapon that is destoryed. He is talking about the third Heavy Bolter mounted on the front. Not the main turret that is destroyed. Not the sponsons. The third bolter mounted on the front.

Kurce wrote:

Read the scenario; the turret is non functional

Read what he wrote: He isn't talking about the weapon that is destoryed. He is talking about the third Heavy Bolter mounted on the front. Not the main turret that is destroyed. Not the sponsons. The third bolter mounted on the front.

No
The Leman Russ is only able to fire its 3 Heavy Bolters at the Grots (the turret weapon has been destroyed).

The Leman Russ is only able to fire its right sponson Heavy Bolter at the Marines (the turret weapon has been destroyed and the other Heavy Bolters cannot see any of the Marines).

This is the scenario. Neither the turret works and in either case the firing arcs are clearly defined

Reading "top gun" as "turret" OR HB makes no difference to the scenario

Kurce wrote:Read what he wrote: He isn't talking about the weapon that is destoryed.

Are you sure?

psyklone wrote:Option e, does the top gun not swivel? Fire that as well and then 50% will be able to see more than 50% and they get no cover.
Otherwise if a leman russ is actually just a motorised cannon, option b

Seems pretty clear he is talking about firing an extra weapon than the one presented in the pictures - a fourth gun. Otherwise, he'd have a hard time making a case that 50% of 3 guns can see more than 50% of the enemy.

I thought meant that the third bolter mounted on the front could swivel. In which case, you could get more of the Grotz in that "green" firing arc out of the front of the Russ.

The rules are actually clear on this, and that's not something I am wont to say. This is all covered in RaW, no matter how people play it, and isn't unclear, if it is at least a bit unintuitive. Even so, I think that it makes sense that a unit like the Space Marines in the second example get cover. If you were a footslogging squad member, and you found a tank that couldn't shoot forward, would you hide behind its arc of sight as fast as possible? I would. If you were ordered to attack a vehicle from the front, wouldn't you also be safer standing in front of only one of the guns rather than all three? Is not the only place to do this directly in front of the tank where the Grots happen to be?

I think the rules are remarkably clear here by GW standards, and even if they aren't, the only difference I would make in terms of a house rule would be that only the models that are in sight of the gun would be able to be allocated wounds suffered by that gun, and that these specific models would not be granted cover saves from those specific shots. That's not what GW wrote, but it's much more intuitive.