Switch Theme:

Imotekh Lightning and cover saves  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine







Currently, you do not get los cover saves. Personally, I hope this special rule gets nerfed into the ground with the new codex. So sick of facing Imhotekh in every game against my regular necron opponent. D6 S8 hits is absurdly powerful and he doesn't even have to be deployed. At least night fighting got scaled back.
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Now I am home, the Rule I was remembering and I was correct:
... usually because the attack doesn’t originate from an enemy unit, but from a lethal environmental hazard such as man-eating forests or lightning bolts lancing down from the sky....
and
... For the purposes of determining if the model is obscured, imagine the attack is coming from directly above its unit....
- Random Allocation

If you can get anything over the head of the Model, it will be are 100% safe from this Special Rule.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/09/02 02:43:23


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout






coredump wrote:
Orbital bombardment works in a similar way (not the same, similar) It is considered to be coming 'from' the Chapter master, even though it comes down from the skies.

Barrage hits side armor, even though it comes 'from' a unit on the board.



It is considered coming from the Chapter Master for one practical reason. To determine scatter. It's like a real world army Field Observer.. Calling in coordinates for a place he can't see likely wouldnt be as accurate, if you don't have satelites and GPS and computers. That's kind of what that's meant to simulate.


DR:80-S++G+M-B---I+Pw40k#10++D+A++++/cWD-R+++T(T)DM+
(Grey Knights 4500+) (Eldar 4000+ Pts) (Tyranids 3000 Pts) (Tau 3000 Pts) (Imperial Guard 3500 Pts) (Doom Eagles 3000 Pts) (Orks 3000+ Pts) (Necrons 2500 Pts) (Daemons 2000) (Sisters of Battle 2000) (2 Imperial Knights) 
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




JinxDragon wrote:
Now I am home, the Rule I was remembering and I was correct:
... usually because the attack doesn’t originate from an enemy unit, but from a lethal environmental hazard such as man-eating forests or lightning bolts lancing down from the sky....
and
... For the purposes of determining if the model is obscured, imagine the attack is coming from directly above its unit....
- Random Allocation

If you can get anything over the head of the Model, it will be are 100% safe from this Special Rule.


Not quite, directly above would be at the top of the model that was randomly chosen.

Directly above does not mean look down from the ceiling.

 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

We determine Obstruction by drawing Lines.
If the two points on that line are meant to be occupying the same space, aka nothing in between, is it a line?
If the possibility of such an outcome is always 'visible' why have instructions for determining if the model is obscured in the first place?

We are now diverging over a single word in Written Rule, so neither of us have Rule support from this point forward. Given that "directly" means without changing direction, and seeing as the sentence in question is talking about the vector in which something is approaching the Unit, I think it is safe to state this Rule's Intention is to have us draw a line upwards from the Model to determine if something obstructing the attack. There simply is no reason in informing us the direction of the attack unless they wanted us to know that for obstruction purposes, even keeping silent on the issue would of been more akin to 'no Cover Saves from Obstruction' then providing us instructions on how to determine Obstruction.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/02 04:18:05


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




JinxDragon wrote:
We determine Obstruction by drawing Lines.
If the two points on that line are meant to be occupying the same space, aka nothing in between, is it a line?
If the possibility of such an outcome is always 'visible' why have instructions for determining if the model is obscured in the first place?

We are now diverging over a single word in Written Rule, so neither of us have Rule support from this point forward. Given that "directly" means without changing direction, and seeing as the sentence in question is talking about the vector in which something is approaching the Unit, I think it is safe to state this Rule's Intention is to have us draw a line upwards from the Model to determine if something obstructing the attack. There simply is no reason in informing us the direction of the attack unless they wanted us to know that for obstruction purposes, even keeping silent on the issue would of been more akin to 'no Cover Saves from Obstruction' then providing us instructions on how to determine Obstruction.


How far upwards? how long of a line? a nanometer above the model is directly above the model and a line can no be drawn to the model. Both your critera met. Without having a originating point to trace LOS to, there can be no LOS obstruction for a cover save.

 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

How are you determining that the end point of your Line is one Nanometer?
If you are correct and the word directly means that there can be nothing between the two points, how does a Nanometer of measurable distance count as nothing?

As for the lack if one point being a problem, I disagree. From a Rule Perspective, the line can be theoretically endless because only certain things have permission to Obstruct that line... nearly everything in the game, but still only certain things. So while we will not be able to technically prove there isn't an Imperial Bunker floating somewhere between Earth and Mars, that we happen to be hitting with our line, I think it is fairly safe to say if we can not prove something is obstructing that Line then it is not being obstructed.

I will once more ask, because it is very important:
Given this is an Authors Intent argument, please explain to me why the Authors would provide instructions for determining Obstruction if they never intended for the Model to ever be Obstructed?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/02 04:56:36


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




JinxDragon wrote:
How are you determining that the end point of your Line is one Nanometer?
If you are correct and the word directly means that there can be nothing between the two points, how does a Nanometer of measurable distance count as nothing?

As for the lack if one point being a problem, I disagree. From a Rule Perspective, the line can be theoretically endless because only certain things have permission to Obstruct that line... nearly everything in the game, but still only certain things. So while we will not be able to technically prove there isn't an Imperial Bunker floating somewhere between Earth and Mars, that we happen to be hitting with our line, I think it is fairly safe to say if we can not prove something is obstructing that Line then it is not being obstructed.

I will once more ask, because it is very important:
Given this is an Authors Intent argument, please explain to me why the Authors would provide instructions for determining Obstruction if they never intended for the Model to be Obstructed?


How about the ceiling?

directly also means with nothing in between. so you could only draw up to the first obstruction. Once you go past the first obstruction you are no longer directly above the unit.

It's a general rule, and there could be some instance that I don't know of, that makes use of why the authors put in the rule. Or maybe for special rules where facing matters.



 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Rules exist to tell us how to interact within the Game, something that exists outside of the Game is irrelevant to the Rules.

So back to Intent:
Why would the Author state "for the purpose of determining if a Model is Obstructed" if they wanted this for something other then actual Obstruction?
Why use the words 'determining Obstruction' when they never intended for us to use this to determine if the Model is Obstructed?
The explication of "Facing" creates even bigger problems, thank's to the absence of any Top Facing, as what Facing would be under the Line?

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2014/09/02 05:52:40


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




JinxDragon wrote:
Where in the book does it state that objects outside of the Game can interact with the Rules?
Rules exist to tell us how to interact within the Game, something that exists outside of the Game is irrelevant to the Rules.

So back to Intent:
Why would they state for the purpose of determining of a Model is Obstructed if they wanted you to use this line to determine things something other then actual Obstruction?
Why use the words 'determining Obstruction' when they never intended for us to use this to determine if the Model is Obstructed?
The explication of "Facing" creates even bigger problems, thank's to the absence of any Top Facing the line would hit the point where all the facings meet right in it's centre.


You drew the line to mars and talked about a bastion floating in space. The ceiling is something we can see and is also above us, where we are told the attack comes from the sky. So I felt the need to ask for clarification.

What they failed to mention is the originating point. If they meant for models to be obscured from things above them they would have had to set a height. Like the attack comes from 3" above the unit.

All we know is 'directly' Without changing direction and with nothing in between. Once those two criteria are met, that's your point. Otherwise you open up to people saying; Well if I hold the marker 1 foot above the table, you don't get the cover save from that wall.

the facing isn't a issue though. Did it hit the front, no it all sides equally. does hitting all sides equal an attack from the front? I wouldn't think so.

 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




Kangodo wrote:
Because you can only take those if you are partially obscured from the firer.
Nobody that fires the attack = no cover save.

Please note that we are not talking about Stealth or Shrouded, but cover-saves granted by blocking LoS, like terrain, walls or ruins.

From a strictly practical standpoint it's a non deviating 4d6" blast with S10AP2.

But not from a RAW standpoint.
And why describe it as a blast? It might be a wave of radiation that is released.. Good luck trying to hide from radiation!


In case you did not know, radiation is absorbed by all materials, you can hide from most radiation by standing behind a concrete wall.
The more radiation, the more concrete, but since those people are already wearing armor and weathering plasma shots and other stuff, they can probably take a few millisieverts.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/02 06:00:13


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Directly can mean 'the direction of', 'nothing between' or even something else irrelevant to the interpretations we are debating....
As there is no way to determine exactly which meaning the Author Intended at this point, returning to the fact it can mean X is irrelevant to determining if it means X.

Author Intent will always come back to this question:
Why did they tell us how to go about determining if the "Random" Model is Obstructed if they wanted "Random" Models to always be visible?

PS:
What if I am in a situation where the model's head literally touches the terrain above it?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/02 06:08:12


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




sirlynchmob wrote:
morgoth wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:


If it was a shooting attack it wouldn't affect his allies of convenience, but as it does affect enemy units on his side it is clearly not coming from him. He modifies the night fighting rules, it doesn't even use his BS, nor does it follow the shooting sequence. Does using the LOTS ability prevent him from shooting with a different weapon? nope.

see allies of convenience "can not be shot"
"are affected by attacks, special rules, or abilities used by allies of convenience that affect 'enemy' units...."


Ok then, wtf is it, why are there no cover saves ?


It's a special rule, and you can claim cover if you're in area terrain, or from stealth/shroud not gained from nightfighting. It's also why you use random allocation for the attack to allocate the wounds.

You just don't get cover based on LOS to imotekh or cover from night fighting, as he has nothing to do with the ability, you bought him, he modified the night fighting rules. The nightfighting rules now cause d6 hits against his enemy units.


Well that special rule should be normalized.
It clearly was written without any thought about anything, for fifth edition, and it's just utterly broken now in a game where most things are limited by cover saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote:
Now I am home, the Rule I was remembering and I was correct:
... usually because the attack doesn’t originate from an enemy unit, but from a lethal environmental hazard such as man-eating forests or lightning bolts lancing down from the sky....
and
... For the purposes of determining if the model is obscured, imagine the attack is coming from directly above its unit....
- Random Allocation

If you can get anything over the head of the Model, it will be are 100% safe from this Special Rule.


That was the worst case I expected, thanks for finding quotes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:

How about the ceiling?

directly also means with nothing in between. so you could only draw up to the first obstruction. Once you go past the first obstruction you are no longer directly above the unit.

It's a general rule, and there could be some instance that I don't know of, that makes use of why the authors put in the rule. Or maybe for special rules where facing matters.


How about just reading the rule without trying to distort it for the sake of an endless argument ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:
You drew the line to mars and talked about a bastion floating in space. The ceiling is something we can see and is also above us, where we are told the attack comes from the sky. So I felt the need to ask for clarification.

What they failed to mention is the originating point. If they meant for models to be obscured from things above them they would have had to set a height. Like the attack comes from 3" above the unit.

All we know is 'directly' Without changing direction and with nothing in between. Once those two criteria are met, that's your point. Otherwise you open up to people saying; Well if I hold the marker 1 foot above the table, you don't get the cover save from that wall.

the facing isn't a issue though. Did it hit the front, no it all sides equally. does hitting all sides equal an attack from the front? I wouldn't think so.


The ceiling is not 40K-approved.
For the sake of the simulation, only what's on the table is part of the equation.
Therefore, standing below a lightning shield or tree would prevent any lightning strikes, including Imotekh's.

But I believe all cover saves were meant to be taken, first because 1S8 hit per unit for three turns on average is just crazy, second because it was written in fifth, where everything was area terrain and jink depended on previous turn movement.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/09/02 06:08:54


 
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




JinxDragon wrote:
Directly can mean 'the direction of', 'nothing between' or even something else irrelevant to the interpretations we are debating....
As there is no way to determine exactly which meaning the Author Intended at this point, returning to the fact it can mean X is irrelevant to determining if it means X.

Author Intent will always come back to this question:
Why did they tell us how to go about determining if the "Random" Model is Obstructed if they wanted "Random" Models to always be visible?


And like I said, I don't know.

I do know you can meet both definitions of 'directly' so to me that seems the best way to play it. It also reduces shenanigans.

How about a 3 story ruin, if you look directly above the unit, all are visible. If you move the point up to the second floor, still all are visible. If you go past the 3rd floor none are visible. Are they all hit, or none of them?
Or like the wall, do you lift a barrage marker high enough to deny the cover save from the wall?

In the interest of fairness the originating point should always be as close to the models as possible and this follows the use of 'directly'

edit
and also acording to Merriam Webster:
b : in immediate physical contact

for your PS, just being above the base is enough to be above the model, so that model would still be allocated the wound with no LOS cover.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@morgoth Do you play orks or nids? just curious.

It's an ap 5 attack. odds are your armor saves will always be better, and you still get cover saves from what used to be known as area terrain. If you are in the terrain, you get the save.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/02 06:34:27


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Without being able to show exactly what the word 'directly' means in this context, I would say denying an opponent what could be a game changing Cover Save based solely on what I personally believed a single word to mean is very much Shenanigan behaviour....
Particularly if there was the possibility that the Authors may have Intended for the Model in question to be completely 'out of sight' in the first place.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/02 06:46:57


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




JinxDragon wrote:
Without being able to show exactly what the word 'directly' means in this context, I would stay denying an opponent a vital Cover Save simply because the Wound was Randomly Allocated is very much Shenanigan behaviour....
Particularly if the Authors may have Intended that the Model in question to be 'out of sight' in the first place.


claiming a cover save you shouldn't have is also very much Shenanigan behaviour.

Can you answer my 2 scenarios?

We don't know their intent, but based on the use of the word 'directly' my use meets all 3 definitions, yours doesn't. And I'm really liking this definition 'b : in immediate physical contact'


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm seeing a pattern here, I'll wait til the 3rd edit for any future responses

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/02 06:50:34


 
   
Made in us
Raging Ravener




All over the place

I'm confused as how this is being made so difficult. Use a laser pointer from above the model, if it can hit the base it is hit, if it cant completely cover the base without obstruction (say from a roof above it) you get a cover save. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Though to be fair, Morgoth your example of being under a tree vs lightning is pretty awful

6000 4000 3500 3000 4000
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky." - Tom Kirby
Successful Trades: HokieHWT, Physh, rothrich, ProjectOneGaming, revackey, chaos0xomega, Redfinger, Kavik_Whitescar 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




sirlynchmob wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
Directly can mean 'the direction of', 'nothing between' or even something else irrelevant to the interpretations we are debating....
As there is no way to determine exactly which meaning the Author Intended at this point, returning to the fact it can mean X is irrelevant to determining if it means X.

Author Intent will always come back to this question:
Why did they tell us how to go about determining if the "Random" Model is Obstructed if they wanted "Random" Models to always be visible?


And like I said, I don't know.

I do know you can meet both definitions of 'directly' so to me that seems the best way to play it. It also reduces shenanigans.

How about a 3 story ruin, if you look directly above the unit, all are visible. If you move the point up to the second floor, still all are visible. If you go past the 3rd floor none are visible. Are they all hit, or none of them?
Or like the wall, do you lift a barrage marker high enough to deny the cover save from the wall?

In the interest of fairness the originating point should always be as close to the models as possible and this follows the use of 'directly'

edit
and also acording to Merriam Webster:
b : in immediate physical contact

for your PS, just being above the base is enough to be above the model, so that model would still be allocated the wound with no LOS cover.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@morgoth Do you play orks or nids? just curious.

It's an ap 5 attack. odds are your armor saves will always be better, and you still get cover saves from what used to be known as area terrain. If you are in the terrain, you get the save.


In the ruin case, no unit would be struck, they're under a friggin roof.

I don't play nids, but in case you haven't noticed 1d6 S8 hits on a WK, riptide or any vehicle really is bad news.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cambonimachine wrote:
I'm confused as how this is being made so difficult. Use a laser pointer from above the model, if it can hit the base it is hit, if it cant completely cover the base without obstruction (say from a roof above it) you get a cover save. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Though to be fair, Morgoth your example of being under a tree vs lightning is pretty awful


Yeah well you know, if it can shield you from melta fire ....

I think your approach is the only other sensible one.

Mine was to say that imotekh's magical wtf ability was akin to a map-wide blast.

But since we're still years away from that kind of rules normalization, I guess we're forced to interpret, and then the roof cover save makes sense.

Next time I play a Necron, I'll have lightning shields all over the map.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/02 07:29:42


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Vanished Completely

Is always best to give me some time to clean up posts, I can never get the damn things formatted correctly... should see how many times I edit it before posting.

Still, back on topic:
For me to expect a Cover Save from a Randomly Allocated attack, I have to begin by having Terrain which allows for something to exist over top of the Unit. That Terrain would also need to have some sort of Rule which allows the 'walls' to have a lower Cover Save then simply standing in the Terrain, or else it is all irrelevant. Then I would need to hope that my opponent is utilizing a Special Rule or creating a situation which leads to the Random Allocation Rules being Evoked or else we never encounter the situation at all. Then that Attack needs to being directed against the Unit in Cover without the opponents control, given if the opponent has permission to direct the attack they will not target a Unit they can't Wound. On top of all that, the attack in question requires an Armour Piercing rate lower then the Armour Save value or else we will end up using a different Save entirely.

That is a lot of circumstances that need to be just right for determining if the Model is Obscured to even matter to the outcome....

For me to expect to deny my opponents a Cover Save I need to be the one including the Special Rule in my Army that allows me to target a Unit with a Random Allocated attack. I could also include a Model which has a board wide Special Rule which targets many Units on the board, further increasing the chances of the Unit in the Ruins of being struck. When the enviable occurs, because I am actively trying to exploit your interpretation and Units in Ruin are common in and of themselves, then I have successfully denied the opponent and actually set out to do so. I hear that the Necron Army have a HQ Unit which allows a free attack against every Enemy Unit on the field, sometimes for multiple turns, all using Random Allocation....

Taking the above into account, how only one side of this debate can be actively exploited, do you really believe that denying your opponent a Cover Save is 'less shenanigan behaviour' then giving your opponent a pass due to rare occurrence and an unknown meaning for a specific word?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/02 08:36:22


8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.  
   
Made in us
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout






No cover saves. The end. Jeez...


DR:80-S++G+M-B---I+Pw40k#10++D+A++++/cWD-R+++T(T)DM+
(Grey Knights 4500+) (Eldar 4000+ Pts) (Tyranids 3000 Pts) (Tau 3000 Pts) (Imperial Guard 3500 Pts) (Doom Eagles 3000 Pts) (Orks 3000+ Pts) (Necrons 2500 Pts) (Daemons 2000) (Sisters of Battle 2000) (2 Imperial Knights) 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




Now that's some constructive discussion, thank you Pyeatt.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout






His lightning comes from the sky. It says it counts as hitting on side armor because we don't play Flames of War, so we don't have top armor values. Is the model under a roof? If not, no cover save.


DR:80-S++G+M-B---I+Pw40k#10++D+A++++/cWD-R+++T(T)DM+
(Grey Knights 4500+) (Eldar 4000+ Pts) (Tyranids 3000 Pts) (Tau 3000 Pts) (Imperial Guard 3500 Pts) (Doom Eagles 3000 Pts) (Orks 3000+ Pts) (Necrons 2500 Pts) (Daemons 2000) (Sisters of Battle 2000) (2 Imperial Knights) 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 Pyeatt wrote:
His lightning comes from the sky. It says it counts as hitting on side armor because we don't play Flames of War, so we don't have top armor values. Is the model under a roof? If not, no cover save.
Stealth. Shrouded. 'Area Terrain'. There are a number of ways to get a cover save without basing it on LoS.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout






I'd thought we'd determined that it's not a shooting attack already. Nature that is shrouding you says screw you and throws lightning. No save.


DR:80-S++G+M-B---I+Pw40k#10++D+A++++/cWD-R+++T(T)DM+
(Grey Knights 4500+) (Eldar 4000+ Pts) (Tyranids 3000 Pts) (Tau 3000 Pts) (Imperial Guard 3500 Pts) (Doom Eagles 3000 Pts) (Orks 3000+ Pts) (Necrons 2500 Pts) (Daemons 2000) (Sisters of Battle 2000) (2 Imperial Knights) 
   
Made in us
Auspicious Daemonic Herald





 Pyeatt wrote:
I'd thought we'd determined that it's not a shooting attack already. Nature that is shrouding you says screw you and throws lightning. No save.

Huh? What are you trying to say?
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 Pyeatt wrote:
I'd thought we'd determined that it's not a shooting attack already. Nature that is shrouding you says screw you and throws lightning. No save.
Melee attacks specifically deny cover saves against them (p52), but that is not true for "generic attack from the skies". We need to use rules for random allocation, to-wound tables, armour / invulnerable saves etc. so we use the shooting rules, otherwise we have no frame of reference.
   
Made in gb
Confessor Of Sins





Newton Aycliffe

JinxDragon wrote:
Without being able to show exactly what the word 'directly' means in this context, I would say denying an opponent what could be a game changing Cover Save based solely on what I personally believed a single word to mean is very much Shenanigan behaviour....
Particularly if there was the possibility that the Authors may have Intended for the Model in question to be completely 'out of sight' in the first place.


I would say that the best way to see this is to insert the "GW frame of reference".

We know that the BRB has a lot of trouble thinking in the Z direction. Everything tends to be done and ruled in X and Y.
So if we read the "directly above" statement with that in mind, it is quite clear that "directly" refers to the position, in X and Y that the point "above" is...

You then consider the Z direction, and whether there is any "obstruction" in that direction. How high? No idea. 3" or 10" could have given a measure, but GW will never decide an arbitrary value.
I'm not at a Rulebook currently to check, but have they removed the "your battle-board" statement? The beginning of the BRB used to describe how everything you play on is part of your game.

IE "above" the unit is anything that is part of the board (Ruins / Trees / a Titan) as opposed to the first "Off-board" obstruction (Ceiling/ Trees(playing outside?)/ Roof)

DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




I like the direction this is taking.

It's not the resolution I most favored, but at least it makes sense.
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




JinxDragon wrote:
Is always best to give me some time to clean up posts, I can never get the damn things formatted correctly... should see how many times I edit it before posting.

Still, back on topic:
For me to expect a Cover Save from a Randomly Allocated attack, I have to begin by having Terrain which allows for something to exist over top of the Unit. That Terrain would also need to have some sort of Rule which allows the 'walls' to have a lower Cover Save then simply standing in the Terrain, or else it is all irrelevant. Then I would need to hope that my opponent is utilizing a Special Rule or creating a situation which leads to the Random Allocation Rules being Evoked or else we never encounter the situation at all. Then that Attack needs to being directed against the Unit in Cover without the opponents control, given if the opponent has permission to direct the attack they will not target a Unit they can't Wound. On top of all that, the attack in question requires an Armour Piercing rate lower then the Armour Save value or else we will end up using a different Save entirely.

That is a lot of circumstances that need to be just right for determining if the Model is Obscured to even matter to the outcome....

For me to expect to deny my opponents a Cover Save I need to be the one including the Special Rule in my Army that allows me to target a Unit with a Random Allocated attack. I could also include a Model which has a board wide Special Rule which targets many Units on the board, further increasing the chances of the Unit in the Ruins of being struck. When the enviable occurs, because I am actively trying to exploit your interpretation and Units in Ruin are common in and of themselves, then I have successfully denied the opponent and actually set out to do so. I hear that the Necron Army have a HQ Unit which allows a free attack against every Enemy Unit on the field, sometimes for multiple turns, all using Random Allocation....

Taking the above into account, how only one side of this debate can be actively exploited, do you really believe that denying your opponent a Cover Save is 'less shenanigan behaviour' then giving your opponent a pass due to rare occurrence and an unknown meaning for a specific word?


not all enemy units, just unengaged enemy units, and he can even hit his allies. Then it's only for a turn or two, not the whole game. He's really hit or miss and IMO not worth the points.

Units in ruins have a 4+ cover save 25% cover or not. the attack is ap5 so most armies get their armor saves anyways. Plus it can't even cause vehicles to explode anymore. Always discuss terrain with your opponent.

If you answer my 2 scenarios you can see why I think mine is the least exploitable.

is placing the point on the model legal RAW? Unequivocally Yes it complies to any use of 'directly'
is placing the point above the model, but only up to the first obstruction legal RAW? Unequivocally Yes it complies to any use of 'directly'
Is placing the point above the maximum height that models occupy on the battle field legal RAW? Maybe, in one use of 'directly' it is.






 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




@Sirlynchmob, it's 3 turns on average.
And he gives 4+ to seize, and he has 2+/3++, and ...

He may not be worth the points because Necron have better options, but he would be auto-take in many armies.

That being said, who the feth cares, that's not the topic.

Your "directly" interpretation does not stand, in the sentence you quoted it means precisely above, i.e. with no angle whatsoever, not physically close.

https://www.google.be/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=directly

directly
dɪˈrɛktli
adverb
1.
without changing direction or stopping.
"they went directly to the restaurant"
synonyms: straight, right, in a straight line, as the crow flies, by a direct route, without deviation, in a beeline, by the shortest route
"the hijacker ordered the crew to fly directly to New York"

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/09/02 13:04:28


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: