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.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It would be kinda nice for GW to set something in stone on their cover system.

To specifically say its either total volume or actual surface area.

A cylinder like Warmachine uses would simplify things immensely.

They did; when they said 25% of the model's body.

That's for non vehicles, which a MC would be included in that. Correct me if I'm wrong but the way it looks MC's now get cover just for being in terrain, which was not the case in 5th, and would alleviate some the the concerns caused by oddly shaped models.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

For vehicles they went 1 further and explained that 25% of the Facing the shooter is in needs to be obscured.

Facing is fairly ambiguous since there really isn't a useful definition of that is this case. It is defined only as 45 degrees from the corners of the hull and there is no vertical definition. So I don't find that particularly helpful when defining RAW.

And whoever said they "shoot at what they see", you also shoot at whats in range, which is measured base to base....

I've always played the percentage as a measurement of area, rather than height or width, but I was really disappointed when they didn't explicitly clarify that in the new book.

The main tension I see here is that 25% of height/width is SO much easier to measure, and it would make for a more streamlined assessment process. It's also more abstract and fluffy, since it accounts for models actually being able to strike different poses, and hunker down or move like they realistically should.

Like, look at a Trygon. It would literally be incapable of locomotion in its given pose. It would necessarily have to collapse down into snake-mode to get anywhere, unless it's operating with some butt-based jumpjet system that the codex fails to describe....

However, given the TLoS system (another massive nail in the coffin of abstract gameplay) I've accepted that 25% of the model's 2D area facing is the correct and intended method, even though it screws over most walkers and monstrous creatures.