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.

liturgies of blood wrote:You only take dangerous terrain tests for moving through difficult terrain. Running and assaulting is fine, though Jet packs like tau crisis suits may require one for an assault movement that doesn't bring them into cc.

This, he's dead right here. Jump infantry count difficult terrain as dangerous in the movement phase, the rest of the time treat it as normal.

Jet Pack Infantry that use their special assault move, treat difficult terrain as dangerous.

The worst part about all of this is that i argued the exact points that have been made here...and the guy still wouldn't relent....

skarousis wrote:The worst part about all of this is that i argued the exact points that have been made here...and the guy still wouldn't relent....

Sadly some people are like this. At least next time you'll be able to back yourself up with more than enough quotes from the rules.

Mann - not entirely correct. Models Out Of LOS are automatically "In cover", so if you have >50% of models out of firing arc, then they are out of LOS (as defined for vehicles) and DO get cover

You could read the sentence on page 22 that way, but given that it's under the "units partially in cover" header, I think the context is clear that it's referring to models out of LOS behind cover, not units out of LOS due to fire arc. It also avoids the question of "how are these guys getting a save when they're not behind anything?.

p21 What Counts as Cover? wrote:Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots.

p22 Units partially in cover wrote:Models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover for this purpose.

I have to agree with nosferatu1001 on this one. The limitaions of the gun mount, the vehicles own hull, these all effect the vehicles ability to fire.

True they may be in the open, but a unit can be some distance away from cover and still benifit from it if it limits LOS. It's hard to kill a whole squad if only a few can be targeted, this is represented by giving them a cover save.

The hull can certainly provide cover.

I'm talking about a unit which is standing completely out in the open, which is covered by nothing, but only half of which is visible to the vehicle due to a limited fire arc. I don't believe the fact that half of the unit is out of the arc grants cover by itself. The models have to be obscured BY something, not just out of the fire arc.

If arc alone could grant cover, what save would it grant?

Mannahnin wrote:The hull can certainly provide cover.

I'm talking about a unit which is standing completely out in the open, which is covered by nothing, but only half of which is visible to the vehicle due to a limited fire arc. I don't believe the fact that half of the unit is out of the arc grants cover by itself. The models have to be obscured BY something, not just out of the fire arc.

If arc alone could grant cover, what save would it grant?

I understand where you're coming from, but i would say that the weapons limited arc is stopping the weapon from bringing it's full effect on the unit. There's plenty of fluff in the book concerning why intervening models grant cover saves, I see a similar case here. Same as obscured, so 4+.

Clearer ruling in the book would be nice, but I see a weapon arc the same as a large wall. You can only hit what you can see, and the weapons mounting prevents it seeing everything.

Try looking at it this way, a cover save is supposed to represent someone dodging behind something that will prevent a round from connecting. Whats to stop someone diving on the other side of the tank so he cannot be targeted? there have been odder things in this game.

Mann- he is out of line of sight, and thus "in" cover. The tank is a unit, so cover is 4+

Agreed

Mannahnin wrote:The FAQ has clarified that a vehicle can't draw LOS through itself, so the vehicle's own hull could provide cover. If a unit is only partially in your firing arc, but not behind cover of any kind, that will not give any kind of cover save.

Out of interest, where is this mentioned? Can't see it in the latest (january) FAQ and it came up recently in a game.

Im confused about his point in this quote though. If a vehicle cannot draw LOS through itself (as you have stated) and the rules for cover explicitly say that if a unit is more than 50% in cover, why then could you not claim cover for being obscured 50% by a vehicles hull?

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Im confused about his point in this quote though. If a vehicle cannot draw LOS through itself (as you have stated) and the rules for cover explicitly say that if a unit is more than 50% in cover, why then could you not claim cover for being obscured 50% by a vehicles hull?

I believe his point was not being able to draw LOS to 50% of the unit due to the limits of the weapon arc. Not because of the hull obscuring it, but the other side of the arc. If you get my meaning.

For example Lema Russ (~90 degree arc to the left) weapon mounted on the left side, shooting a unit to the left. The Hull is to the right of the gun, so doesn't get in the way. If the unit is slightly behind the gun and it's arc doesn't allow it to see 50% of the unit, do they get a cover save?

Technically they're not obscured by anything, just limited on how many members can be seen.

I can see his arguement, and it is worthy of debate, but personally i think the unit should be allowed cover.




Automatically Appended Next Post:


Just to make that clearer...

3/10 of the enemy unit are in the firing arc. The unit is in the open, no cover at all. Can they claim a cover save?

Grendel's got it.

They don't get cover because they're not obscured by anything. There's no intervening thing to interfere with the shots. If you take the sentence "Models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover for this purpose" in context, it's referring to units partially hidden by another unit or terrain, not those that aren't in the firing model's arc. Remember, once you determine that a unit is in cover, you look at what unit or terrain is providing the cover to determine what cover save is taken (4+, 5+, etc.). "Out of fire arc" is not an entry on the chart.

Joey wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The FAQ has clarified that a vehicle can't draw LOS through itself, so the vehicle's own hull could provide cover. If a unit is only partially in your firing arc, but not behind cover of any kind, that will not give any kind of cover save.

Out of interest, where is this mentioned? Can't see it in the latest (january) FAQ and it came up recently in a game.

Main rulebook FAQ, page 4, the question starting "Q: The rules for the arc of fire of pintle-mounted...". It states, as an example, that the cupola-mounted storm bolter has a 360 degree arc of fire, except where it's blocked by the razorback's own turret.

Mannahnin wrote:They don't get cover because they're not obscured by anything. There's no intervening thing to interfere with the shots. If you take the sentence "Models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover for this purpose" in context, it's referring to units partially hidden by another unit or terrain, not those that aren't in the firing model's arc. Remember, once you determine that a unit is in cover, you look at what unit or terrain is providing the cover to determine what cover save is taken (4+, 5+, etc.). "Out of fire arc" is not an entry on the chart.

You make a good case, I used the "out of sight" quote myself, but now I'm more inclined to agree with you.

Edit: Still for the original post, the 'stealers should have got a cover save from all the Land Raiders weapons (that was something blocking LOS, a wreck on one side and a Hull on the other).

Thanks. We just discussed it in the last series of INAT meetings, so it was fresh to my mind.

Okay. And my apologies to mann. I misunderstood what you were saying

None needed, but thanks!

And FYI I did a poll on how people play this exact situation here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/383981.page


The majority seems to think/play that vehicle fire arcs alone cannot grant an enemy unit a cover save.