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.

Again: they are defining *through* as meaning completely *through*, which we can tell given the context of the (because)

Parens do not make them an example, they just do not alter the sentence. Meaning they influence context where this could be ambiguous - it is illustrative of what they mean by through

You are also assuming a based-forest, hence the comment about rearranging makes sense - you could easily alter the boundaries of a non-based forest by moving the trees, as the trees in those cases are usually defining the boundaries.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again: they are defining *through* as meaning completely *through*, which we can tell given the context of the (because)

If the shot(s) pass through 1" or 5" of forest does not matter. It goes through it a portion of the forest. There is nothing stipulating or implying "...completely though..." or they would have written it to say "...completely though..."

(because....)

A because B means you know the context of A

@Steel-Wolf: You are ignoring the statement on page 74: "The difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover:"

It is flat out saying that vehicles are treated differently from everything else with regards to cover. Yes, the forest rules mention "models"; but the vehicle cover rules are quite specific in saying they are treated differently.

It doesn't matter if the vehicle is inside the forest or behind it; nor does it matter if the forest is area terrain or not. Want cover? be 25% obscured no matter where (or what) that terrain is.

Did you have to move the trees around? Then, per rules, put them back as close as possible to their original position and play it from there.

clively wrote:
It is flat out saying that vehicles are treated differently from everything else with regards to cover.

This.

Vehicles have a specific exception to how cover works. Forests give cover in a specific way, but the exception for Vehicles applies to ALL forms of cover.

Ok. Since trees in a forest are moveable, a player just pics the all up and arranges them around his vehicle in the forest template.

That's why the rule says what it does. The forest terrain piece is representing an area full of trees.

 grendel083 wrote:
The problem there is, which part of the hull were they tracing line of sight to? And did they have to draw line of sight through the wood to see that part?

If the vehicle was not 25% obscured, then surely there was enough un-obscured part of the hull to trace LoS to without going through the wood?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Forests, being area terrain, would provide the cover save to your soul grinder as far as I know. Forests only represent an area filled with trees, a forest can just be an area marked out, and agreed to, with no actual trees in it. I may be mistaken though.

In that case the Soul Grinder would never get a cover save from it, as it's a vehicle.

Ah, I'll have to remember that. thanks for the correction

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Ok. Since trees in a forest are moveable, a player just pics the all up and arranges them around his vehicle in the forest template.

As long as the player is abiding by the part of the rule stating to place the trees as close to their original position as possible, then that's fine.

clively wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Ok. Since trees in a forest are moveable, a player just pics the all up and arranges them around his vehicle in the forest template.

As long as the player is abiding by the part of the rule stating to place the trees as close to their original position as possible, then that's fine.

It doesn't say that. It just says to remember the boundaries.

That's why all models in forests get the save. The tree models themselves are just an abstract representation. You can have one tree, thirty trees, or none. It all plays the same if its declared a forest.

I see everyone stating that Forrest's are area terrain. Which of the six types of Forrest state that they are in fact area terrain? I can't find anything stating that they are. As has been pointed out to me, several times, in regards to terrain, if it doesn't specifically say that it is area terrain it cannot be area terrain. I know that the opening paragraph state that forests are "sometimes" area terrain, but there are no rules dictating what those sometimes are.

(This is a devils advocate RAW argument, as I always play them as area terrain along with ruins and water.)

The "through" argument is ridiculous. If one guy is in a forest shooting at another guy, in the same forest, he's still shooting through a forest. I love it when people add words that don't exist in the rules.

 Idolator wrote:
I know that the opening paragraph state that forests are "sometimes" area terrain...

Not "sometimes". "Usually". "Usually" implies that they are unless otherwise specified.

Ok, so if we ignore the clarifying "because" statement and treat it similarly to movement through terrain, wouldn't that make any unit not poking its gun out of the forest grant anything it fires at a cover save?

Also: "At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover" If you do not fulfill that condition or have permission to ignore it you don't get cover, whether the forest is or isn't area terrain is irrelevant.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Ok, so if we ignore the clarifying "because" statement and treat it similarly to movement through terrain, wouldn't that make any unit not poking its gun out of the forest grant anything it fires at a cover save?

Also: "At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover" If you do not fulfill that condition or have permission to ignore it you don't get cover, whether the forest is or isn't area terrain is irrelevant.

So vehicles dont get jink then? According to what you said they arent 25% obscured so they dont get jink. The rule saying 25% takes presicence is for STANDING in area terrain, again we are looking at a rule (shooting through forest) that does not talking about standing in area terrain, but about shooting throught it. I dont get how you can say that vehicles are treated different than infantry in this instance. Either they get it because shooting through forest grants a cover save, or they dont because they always need 25% obscured (which is not the case) and then they also dont get jink saves.

Vehicles don't get jink.

However, skimmers, jetbikes and flyers do. Those are special rules attached to those unit types. We are going from general to specific here.

In general forests give a 5+ cover.
Vehicles require 25% obscurement to get cover due to intervening or area terrain ( slightly more specific )
Skimmers have the jink special rule, which gives them the 5+ based on movement. ( even more specific ).

To make it clearer, the 25% is focused on cover saves derived from terrain and has no impact to cover derived from other items. Examples include intervening models and jink. Want to see something really broken? How about watching a Titan roll a cover save because a prone sniper is between it and the firing unit.

There are 2 bullet points regarding vehicles and cover that you really need to thoroughly read on pg 74 and 75. You keep focusing on only one of them.

clively wrote:
Vehicles don't get jink.

However, skimmers, jetbikes and flyers do. Those are special rules attached to those unit types. We are going from general to specific here.

In general forests give a 5+ cover.
Vehicles require 25% obscurement to get cover due to intervening or area terrain ( slightly more specific )
Skimmers have the jink special rule, which gives them the 5+ based on movement. ( even more specific ).

To make it clearer, the 25% is focused on cover saves derived from terrain and has no impact to cover derived from other items. Examples include intervening models and jink. Want to see something really broken? How about watching a Titan roll a cover save because a prone sniper is between it and the firing unit.

There are 2 bullet points regarding vehicles and cover that you really need to thoroughly read on pg 74 and 75. You keep focusing on only one of them.

The model firing at the Titan must be verry low too, as you are allowed to fire over models with no cover save given.

And again. The forest 5+ is given because the forest is an abstract representation requiring as many or as few physical trees as you like. You can even sharpie a outline on the table and write in "forest". It all plays the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The vehicle is not getting a cover save because its in the forest. It's getting a cover save because the model shooting at it has to shoot through forest terrain.

Please quote the rule allowing you to shoot over the heads of an intervening unit. As the rules for intervening units just cover tracing a line from base to base.

Regarding "abstract representations", you should brush up on what true line of site is. Also I invite you to actually read the forest rules where it is very clear on what to do when moving trees out of the way - namely the part on where to place them once movement has ended and how to treat that. I've already covered it in this thread.

Finally please read the bottom right hand side of page 74. It's exceedingly clear.

clively wrote:
Please quote the rule allowing you to shoot over the heads of an intervening unit. As the rules for intervening units just cover tracing a line from base to base.

Regarding "abstract representations", you should brush up on what true line of site is. Also I invite you to actually read the forest rules where it is very clear on what to do when moving trees out of the way - namely the part on where to place them once movement has ended and how to treat that. I've already covered it in this thread.

Finally please read the bottom right hand side of page 74. It's exceedingly clear.

Don't tell some one to brush up on thier rules when shooting over a model is clearly written out in the intervening model section you claimed I didn't know on page 18. Last sentence of the first paragraph.

And for someone that claims to know what the forest rules say. You should take your own advise. The rule says nothing about what to do with the trees after movement. It just says to keep them in the boundaries of the terrain. p.102 "Cover Save". Last sentence.

 Idolator wrote:
I see everyone stating that Forrest's are area terrain. Which of the six types of Forrest state that they are in fact area terrain? I can't find anything stating that they are. As has been pointed out to me, several times, in regards to terrain, if it doesn't specifically say that it is area terrain it cannot be area terrain.

What other type of terrain has a boundary?

 davou wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I see everyone stating that Forrest's are area terrain. Which of the six types of Forrest state that they are in fact area terrain? I can't find anything stating that they are. As has been pointed out to me, several times, in regards to terrain, if it doesn't specifically say that it is area terrain it cannot be area terrain.

What other type of terrain has a boundary?

All of them, you're thinking about bases, not boundaries.

If there are tree's on the table, the vehicle needs to be 25% obscured to get the cover.

If at the start of the game both players agree that a peice of area terrain is a forrest, then vehicles inside of it can claim the 5+ cover for being obscured. This does however require both players to agree it is an area of forest however since an area of forrest is assumed to have many tree's and shrubs covering it.

Every model gains a 5+ cover save if they are getting shot at from a model on the other side of the area of the forest/trees, even if they dont seem to be 25% obscured.


This is the most reasonable way to play it in my gaming groups book.

Eihnlazer wrote:
If there are tree's on the table, the vehicle needs to be 25% obscured to get the cover.

If at the start of the game both players agree that a peice of area terrain is a forrest, then vehicles inside of it can claim the 5+ cover for being obscured. This does however require both players to agree it is an area of forest however since an area of forrest is assumed to have many tree's and shrubs covering it.

Every model gains a 5+ cover save if they are getting shot at from a model on the other side of the area of the forest/trees, even if they dont seem to be 25% obscured.


This is the most reasonable way to play it in my gaming groups book.

I don't think you can just have trees on the board as it mentions having to know the boundaries.

But other than that I agree.

Eihnlazer wrote:
If there are tree's on the table, the vehicle needs to be 25% obscured to get the cover.

If at the start of the game both players agree that a peice of area terrain is a forrest, then vehicles inside of it can claim the 5+ cover for being obscured. This does however require both players to agree it is an area of forest however since an area of forrest is assumed to have many tree's and shrubs covering it.

Every model gains a 5+ cover save if they are getting shot at from a model on the other side of the area of the forest/trees, even if they dont seem to be 25% obscured.


This is the most reasonable way to play it in my gaming groups book.

1. Agree, a single tree does not a forest make though. I'd say you'd need at least 3 trees to start getting any kind of boundary.

2. not obscured, just in the forest boundary, just like stealth, shroud, jink, and wargear can grant a vehicle cover saves even when not obscured, so does the forest. But yes you'd still end up getting the 5+ cover save for being in the boundary.

3. agree

 davou wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I see everyone stating that Forrest's are area terrain. Which of the six types of Forrest state that they are in fact area terrain? I can't find anything stating that they are. As has been pointed out to me, several times, in regards to terrain, if it doesn't specifically say that it is area terrain it cannot be area terrain.

What other type of terrain has a boundary?

ruins have a boundary, both vertical and horizontal, but I have been argued against that they aren't area terrain. Water features have a boundary,

The forest rules say "usually" in regards to area terrain. So it's up to the players to define during setup.

The rules on ruins state that if the ruin is on a base, that base is area terrain. Don't have the rule book in front of me this instant, but both wordings are easy to find in their respective areas.

 Idolator wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I see everyone stating that Forrest's are area terrain. Which of the six types of Forrest state that they are in fact area terrain? I can't find anything stating that they are. As has been pointed out to me, several times, in regards to terrain, if it doesn't specifically say that it is area terrain it cannot be area terrain.

What other type of terrain has a boundary?

ruins have a boundary, both vertical and horizontal, but I have been argued against that they aren't area terrain. Water features have a boundary,

Water features are usually area terrain, Likewise for a ruin with a base. The upper levels of a ruin are not area terrain. If you're on the bottom of a ruin, and on the base, then you can go to ground making the area terrain +2 (giving you a three up) or the ruin save +1 (giving you a three up); its not complicated.

when the book mentions boundary, and you decide to ignore the fact that there a nice flat geometric shape on the table for you to count so you can argue semantically about the vertical you're choosing to be thick. Boundary is clearly defined; there's no reason whatsoever to pretend like 3d modelling or topographical geometry should be used to interpret it.

For the clarity of the game, it is important to be able to tell where the boundary of the terrain feature is. This is where we need to introduce the concept of 'area terrain'. You can show the boundary of a piece of area terrain by using a flat baseboard

The boundary of a ruins base is area terrain; the area of the table covered by its base.
The boundary of a water feature likewise, is the area of the table obscured by the outline of the flat portions of the water feature.
The boundary of a forest, similarly is the flat area of the table covered by the base of the forest feature.

In all of those cases, you can have built the feature directly into your table, but then the onus is on you both to discuss boundaries before the game starts.

Forests are a special case because;

Similarly, if one or more models in a shooting unit have to trace their line of sight through a forest (because they're
shooting at a model beyond the forest) then the model being shot benefits from a 5+cover save.

there is no requirement for there to be tree's directly in the way. For simplicity's sake, I would assume the 'forest' is only as tall as its tallest tree, but again, there are no requirements for that either. Its convoluted and breaks with the norm for cover, its one of only two instances of actual LOS not mattering, and the only instance of getting an area terrain save without being in the area terrain.