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.

I have some nice Gallery images for you:
Due to "If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit (...), it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."



Has a Cover save (only about 5% of the model is covered)



No cover save from the Marine (or Wraithknight)

 BlackTalos wrote:
I have some nice Gallery images for you:
Due to "If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit (...), it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."



Has a Cover save (only about 5% of the model is covered)



No cover save from the Marine (or Wraithknight)

Well illustrated, and I concur, the only thing I would suggest is drawing the second line from a point on the large model to the base of the marine... to show that the LOS is clear both ways.

This topic gets more conversation that it deserves. I think it is clear and I play it this way.

Rx8Speed wrote:
1) Does the wraithknight get a cover save from enemy infantry?

Yes

Rx8Speed wrote:
2) Does the wraithknight get a cover save from enemy vehicles?

Yes

Rx8Speed wrote:
3) Do enemy infantry get a cover save from the wraithknight?

No, because line of sight can be drawn from anywhere on the body of the wraith knight (head, torso, legs). Wraith Knight is tall, use the head to draw LOS, that will clearly be too high for the jetbikes to obscure targeted units.

Rx8Speed wrote:
4) Do enemy vehicles get a cover save from the wraightknight?

No, for the same reason as above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I have some nice Gallery images for you:
Due to "If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit (...), it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."



Has a Cover save (only about 5% of the model is covered)



No cover save from the Marine (or Wraithknight)

These diagrams are well done.

chanceafs wrote:
Well illustrated, and I concur, the only thing I would suggest is drawing the second line from a point on the large model to the base of the marine... to show that the LOS is clear both ways.

 Ghaz wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
Well illustrated, and I concur, the only thing I would suggest is drawing the second line from a point on the large model to the base of the marine... to show that the LOS is clear both ways.

Well, that just confuses the issue since in that case the marine would get a cover save... however, since you don't have to use the eyes, you could draw a line that went from a higher point on that model to the marine uninterrupted.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I have some nice Gallery images for you:
Due to "If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit (...), it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."



Has a Cover save (only about 5% of the model is covered)



No cover save from the Marine (or Wraithknight)

Nice pictures, I just disagree with your conclusion.

As you quoted, the model gets a cover save "In the same way as being behind terrain" The only way you get a cover save from being behind terrain, is to be obscured by 25%.

Thus the first picture, the fex would *not* get a cover save. (Please note, the fex *is* 'in cover', but needs to be in cover and 25% obscured to get a cover save.)




As for the Fex shooting the marine, for LoS you don't use weapons, or 'peripherals', so you can't really go much higher...

coredump wrote:
"elevated" is not a condition nor special rule. It is simple English.

No such thing in You Make Da Call


Automatically Appended Next Post:

coredump wrote:

Thus the first picture, the fex would *not* get a cover save. (Please note, the fex *is* 'in cover', but needs to be in cover and 25% obscured to get a cover save.)

Citation? RAW I think only vehicles have the 25% verbiage, otherwise TLoS is TLoS. If a guardsman autocannon can see your toe through 18 trees and 7 widnows across the board, as verified by a laser pointer, you don't get a cover save RAW.

We always houserule that Area Terrain is still a thing and shooting through a "wood" gives 5+, and skip the laser pointer, but RAW? Not so much.

coredump wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I have some nice Gallery images for you:
Due to "If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit (...), it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."



Has a Cover save (only about 5% of the model is covered)

Nice pictures, I just disagree with your conclusion.

As you quoted, the model gets a cover save "In the same way as being behind terrain" The only way you get a cover save from being behind terrain, is to be obscured by 25%.

Thus the first picture, the fex would *not* get a cover save. (Please note, the fex *is* 'in cover', but needs to be in cover and 25% obscured to get a cover save.)




As for the Fex shooting the marine, for LoS you don't use weapons, or 'peripherals', so you can't really go much higher...

Why would you disagree with the conclusion, are you taking this into account:

"if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer." (The shooting Phase chapter, Intervening Models section, 1st graph, 2nd sentence).

if you had Line of sight set up just like you see, you would be firing through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, and as such the target would be in cover.

Coredump,
Stating that it needs to be 25% or more fails to address exactly what 'partially obscured' means.
If 25% or more is simply 'Obscured' then how can it also be 'partially Obscured?'

coredump wrote:
Nice pictures, I just disagree with your conclusion.

As you quoted, the model gets a cover save "In the same way as being behind terrain" The only way you get a cover save from being behind terrain, is to be obscured by 25%.

Thus the first picture, the fex would *not* get a cover save. (Please note, the fex *is* 'in cover', but needs to be in cover and 25% obscured to get a cover save.)

This line of argument isn't very convincing, because it would be a true statement to say:

A Tervigon gets a 3+ armor save in the same way that a Tactical Marine gets a 3+ armor save.

And yet you wouldn't argue that the above sentence indicates that the Tervigon has 1 wounds like a Tactical Marine.

The following sentence isn't correct:

A Tervigon gets 1 wound and a 3+ armor save in the same way that a Tactical Marine gets 1 wound and a 3+ armor save.

The reason sentence 1 is a true statement, and sentence 2 is not is because I added things to sentence 2 based on inference. When you add details based on inference you lose the ability to claim RAW, and instead are making a claim for RAI. In a showdown between RAW vs RAI, we generally go with RAW or else we might end up with weird things like a Tervigon that dies to a single failed armor save.

 DeathReaper wrote:


Why would you disagree with the conclusion, are you taking this into account:

"if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer." (The shooting Phase chapter, Intervening Models section, 1st graph, 2nd sentence).

if you had Line of sight set up just like you see, you would be firing through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, and as such the target would be in cover.

Of course I took that passage into account. But being 'in cover' is *not* sufficient to get a cover save. You need to be covered by at least 25% to actually get a cover save.
This is spelled out pretty explicitly in the beginning of the Cover Saves section.

JinxDragon wrote:
Coredump,
Stating that it needs to be 25% or more fails to address exactly what 'partially obscured' means.
If 25% or more is simply 'Obscured' then how can it also be 'partially Obscured?'

You seem somehow convinced that
"Obscured" is equivalent to being 25% covered.
I don't see that defined anywhere in the rules. Partially obscured means any level of obscurement... why would it mean anything else?
If that level is 25% or more, the target gets a cover save.

tag8833 wrote:
Stuff...

To match your interpretation, the sentence would be written:
"A Tervigon gets a 3+ armor save, the same as a Tactical Marine."

Likewise, the cover rule would have been written:
"it receives a 5+ cover save, the same as if it was behind terrain."

But that is *not* how the rule is written, it is written about the *WAY* it gets a cover save; 'way' refers to a process or methodology... not a simple equivalence


To say a Terv has a 3+ save 'in the same way' as a marine, either indicates the Terv is wearing power armor, or you are referring to game designer meta processes; because that is the *way* the marine has a 3+ save.

coredump wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Why would you disagree with the conclusion, are you taking this into account:

"if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer." (The shooting Phase chapter, Intervening Models section, 1st graph, 2nd sentence).

if you had Line of sight set up just like you see, you would be firing through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, and as such the target would be in cover.

Of course I took that passage into account. But being 'in cover' is *not* sufficient to get a cover save. You need to be covered by at least 25% to actually get a cover save.
This is spelled out pretty explicitly in the beginning of the Cover Saves section.

So then what does this part of that rule mean?

"even if it is completely visible to the firer."?

Being in cover means you are granted a cover save.

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover." (The Shooting Phase chapter, Cover Saves section).

So they are in cover even if they are completely visible to the firer if they are firing through the gaps between models in an intervening unit.

Somehow I replied to something on the front page, I have been off quite a bit it seems, but I still will leave it here...

How do you measure elevation from a Rule as Written stance?
Measurement Rules greatly suggest it would have to do with the Models base unless otherwise stated, but the rest is a little vague about what point we are measuring to as the rest of the Rule assumes another base. There are a few ideas forming on what we could do to fix that, Rule as Written supported, but like many of Game Rules they all do not account for height. Assuming it is a general consensus that we measure straight down to the table itself,the requirement to Measure from the Models base's closest point eliminates height. I can formulate an argument that makes it illegal to measure to the Table, requiring the Model to be on Terrain with a base, and that eliminates a lot of shenanigans but nothing I do allows for the size of the Model....

Anyone can help?

 DeathReaper wrote:


Being in cover means you are granted a cover save.

No, it most certainly does not. The amazing part is you just quoted the rule that disproves your assertion.

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover." (The Shooting Phase chapter, Cover Saves section).

Yes, being partially hidden means it is 'in cover', being partially hidden is *not enough* for a cover save. If only 10% is partially hidden, there is no cover save.
The next paragraph goes on to detail that it needs to not only be 'in cover', but hidden by 25% or more.

So then what does this part of that rule mean?

"even if it is completely visible to the firer."?

So they are in cover even if they are completely visible to the firer if they are firing through the gaps between models in an intervening unit.

Yes, the gaps between does provide cover. And if they are 'covered' by 25%... they are in cover *and* get a cover save.









Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Somehow I replied to something on the front page, I have been off quite a bit it seems, but I still will leave it here...

How do you measure elevation from a Rule as Written stance?
Measurement Rules greatly suggest it would have to do with the Models base unless otherwise stated, but the rest is a little vague about what point we are measuring to as the rest of the Rule assumes another base. There are a few ideas forming on what we could do to fix that, Rule as Written supported, but like many of Game Rules they all do not account for height. Assuming it is a general consensus that we measure straight down to the table itself,the requirement to Measure from the Models base's closest point eliminates height. I can formulate an argument that makes it illegal to measure to the Table, requiring the Model to be on Terrain with a base, and that eliminates a lot of shenanigans but nothing I do allows for the size of the Model....

Anyone can help?

I have no idea why you are acting like "elevated" is a game defined term. The rule book is written in English, it just means 'elevated'. If it is shooting from a higher position.... it is elevated. A wraithknight shooting at marine has an elevated position.

Coredump,
The same reason why 'Dictionary Arguments' are against the tenets of these boards: Words do not mean the same in every part of the word, even from dictionary to dictionary a word's meaning can change.

Unless we are going to argue what the Author might of Intended when they chose that word then dictionaries do not matter, it only matters what the Rules themselves say about the situation. The Rule in question literally called out Elevation and Barrage as the only two things which can veto it by default, so it appears that knowing how the Rules defines Elevation is just as important as knowing how the Rules define Barrage. Without any particular instructions on the matter we are left in a 'gray zone' at best, where we can use previous established Rules to patch something together. That would involve, in this situation, taking the default Restriction on making measurements from the Base....

coredump wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Being in cover means you are granted a cover save.

No, it most certainly does not. The amazing part is you just quoted the rule that disproves your assertion.

Actually what I quoted proves what the RAW say.



So then what does this part of that rule mean?

"even if it is completely visible to the firer."?

chanceafs wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I have some nice Gallery images for you:
Due to "If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit (...), it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."



Has a Cover save (only about 5% of the model is covered)



No cover save from the Marine (or Wraithknight)

Well illustrated, and I concur, the only thing I would suggest is drawing the second line from a point on the large model to the base of the marine... to show that the LOS is clear both ways.

No, the Marine in this case was not considered and i would say he is actually in Cover, as from what i can see in Ghaz's post... As i say, not considered at the time of creation...

Re-adding my original post, because you indicated that I didn't use the word "way":

coredump wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
A Tervigon gets a 3+ armor save in the same way that a Tactical Marine gets a 3+ armor save.

And yet you wouldn't argue that the above sentence indicates that the Tervigon has 1 wounds like a Tactical Marine.

The following sentence isn't correct:

A Tervigon gets 1 wound and a 3+ armor save in the same way that a Tactical Marine gets 1 wound and a 3+ armor save.

The reason sentence 1 is a true statement, and sentence 2 is not is because I added things to sentence 2 based on inference. When you add details based on inference you lose the ability to claim RAW, and instead are making a claim for RAI. In a showdown between RAW vs RAI, we generally go with RAW or else we might end up with weird things like a Tervigon that dies to a single failed armor save.

To match your interpretation, the sentence would be written:
"A Tervigon gets a 3+ armor save, the same as a Tactical Marine."

Likewise, the cover rule would have been written:
"it receives a 5+ cover save, the same as if it was behind terrain."

But that is *not* how the rule is written, it is written about the *WAY* it gets a cover save; 'way' refers to a process or methodology... not a simple equivalence


To say a Terv has a 3+ save 'in the same way' as a marine, either indicates the Terv is wearing power armor, or you are referring to game designer meta processes; because that is the *way* the marine has a 3+ save.

JinxDragon wrote:
Coredump,
The same reason why 'Dictionary Arguments' are against the tenets of these boards: Words do not mean the same in every part of the word, even from dictionary to dictionary a word's meaning can change.

Unless we are going to argue what the Author might of Intended when they chose that word then dictionaries do not matter, it only matters what the Rules themselves say about the situation. The Rule in question literally called out Elevation and Barrage as the only two things which can veto it by default, so it appears that knowing how the Rules defines Elevation is just as important as knowing how the Rules define Barrage. Without any particular instructions on the matter we are left in a 'gray zone' at best, where we can use previous established Rules to patch something together. That would involve, in this situation, taking the default Restriction on making measurements from the Base....

Sorry, but that is insane. The rulebook is filled with words and terms never defined in the book, if you needed everything defined,the game grinds to a halt almost immediately. According to the *rules*, what does 'rare' mean? 'automatically'? 'otherwise'? 'both'? random? specific? attempt? succeed? normal? etc etc.

To insist that every word used must be define within the game, is to ignore the reason common languages are created in the first place.

*SOMETIMES* a word means something to the game that is different, or more specific, than it does normally; in those cases the terms need to be defined within the game. In *THOSE* cases bringing in the 'dictionary' definition doesn't help because that definition has been supplanted and is thus no longer valid. (That is why the tenants simply say dictionary definitions "may not be reliable")

But in many many many cases, the words are not redefined in the rules; and we fall back to using the 'standard' definition.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

coredump wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Being in cover means you are granted a cover save.

No, it most certainly does not. The amazing part is you just quoted the rule that disproves your assertion.

Actually what I quoted proves what the RAW say.

Yes, and *YOU* said being 'in cover' gives a cover save... but the rule you stated does *not* say that. It says being partially hidden means you are 'in cover'; but nothing about actually granting a cover save. Which, coincidently, is exactly what I have been saying.

So... can you provide a rule to support your assertion? Please provide a rule stating that simply being 'in cover' is enough to provide a cover save. Or kindly stop making things up and claiming them as fact.

So then what does this part of that rule mean?

"even if it is completely visible to the firer."?

Probable the exact same thing it meant the last time you asked... which you have conveniently skipped over...

Let me copy and past it here for your convenience....

Yes, the gaps between does provide cover. And if they are 'covered' by 25%... they are in cover *and* get a cover save.

Try quoting more than the tiniest sliver of a rule... it is refering to being 'in cover' it is *not* refering to granting a cover save.
Please stop conflating the two....

Yes, certain words do need to be defined by the Rules themselves in order for said Rules to even function. This is what 'Terminology' is, the act of putting a sequence into a word or two and then using those one or two words in order to refer back to the sequence as a whole. The most largest example proving that Terminology exists in 40K is the word 'Model.' This is something a great number of Rules refer to but is also the most common name given to the plastic figures that we use to play the game. So by the logic that the Rules use 'common meanings' and are not written around the concept of Terminology, I can apply any Model-specific Rule to any piece of plastic used within the game and that would be 'Rule as Written' supported.

So if a rule simply refers to Elevation, then we need to know what the Rules themselves consider to be an 'elevation' in order to ensure we resolve that Rule correctly.

Besides you keep failing to address a massive problem in you argument:
If the Rules for Measuring require all Measurements to be taken from the base of a model, unless otherwise specified, why are you claiming we can measure height to the Weapon itself?
So even without a definition of Elevation, the method you wish to determine it openly violates a Written Rule.

Of *course* there are words the rules have defined. I *said that* already. Of *course* there is terminology in the game, I have said that too.

But... not *every word* used is defined within the context of the rules. I gave a long list above, and that was only from one page. You can add 'elevated' to that list. The rules do not define 'elevated' any more than they define 'normal' or 'rare' or 'both'. You are expected to know the English language to read and utilize the rulebook.

Besides you keep failing to address a massive problem in you argument:
If the Rules for Measuring require all Measurements to be taken from the base of a model, unless otherwise specified, why are you claiming we can measure height to the Weapon itself?
So even without a definition of Elevation, the method you wish to determine it openly violates a Written

Review the rules again.
The rules for *measuring distance* says to measure from base to base.
The rules for determining LoS do not mention 'measuring' nor 'distance'. They refer to 'tracing a line' from one point on the model to the other model.
So I am not clear what 'open violation' you are referring to.

coredump wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

coredump wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Being in cover means you are granted a cover save.

No, it most certainly does not. The amazing part is you just quoted the rule that disproves your assertion.

Actually what I quoted proves what the RAW say.

Yes, and *YOU* said being 'in cover' gives a cover save... but the rule you stated does *not* say that. It says being partially hidden means you are 'in cover'; but nothing about actually granting a cover save. Which, coincidently, is exactly what I have been saying.

So... can you provide a rule to support your assertion? Please provide a rule stating that simply being 'in cover' is enough to provide a cover save. Or kindly stop making things up and claiming them as fact.

Right here:

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save" (The Shooting Phase chapter, Cover saves section).


If a model is in cover it will be entitled to a cover save.

the rules most certainly do say that "simply being 'in cover' is enough to provide a cover save"

Coredump,
Even you just stated it, rules for determining Line of Sight do not mention Measurement or Distance. This is because they are not a tool designed to measure these factors, they are designed to grant us a Boolean to know a True or False state. Elevation, however, can only be calculated using measurements and mathematical formulation to determine the exact position of an object in relation to other objects. So even if we assume Elevation does not need to be defined by any particular Written Rule, we are still bound by the Rules which do govern how we go about taking Measurements in this game. This is problematic because those Rules, like so many of Game Workshop's, do not take the Model's height into consideration.

So we are also forbidden from doing so from a strict Rule as Written perspective, as annoying as that is.

It also shows you do not understand how the Line of Sight to Intervening Model argument actually words from a Written perspective, so please allow me to assist. The reason why a Line of Sight passing over top of a Model would not trigger a Cover Save is because the Rule specifies 'Through' the gap. That argument is not that the Line is somehow meeting the requirements of 'elevation' to except it from the Intervening Model Rule. That argument is to state that the Intervening Model Rule is not triggered at all and therefore the Cover Save is never granted to begin with. Should you want to switch your stance to that one, I will simply let the matter go because my entire reply chain to you has been about the fact Elevation is completely meaningless as an Exemption to this Rule without a definition.

 DeathReaper wrote:


Right here:

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save" (The Shooting Phase chapter, Cover saves section).


If a model is in cover it will be entitled to a cover save.

the rules most certainly do say that "simply being 'in cover' is enough to provide a cover save"

You skip the next paragraph that proves your point incorrect. That requires 25% obscurement for a cover save.

The term "partiallly obscured" is also used in the Units in Cover section. ""3 Orks (circled in red) have a 4+ cover save as at least one firing model has his line of sight partially obscured by the ruin"" So "partially obscured" means at least 25%.

Fragile,
See, it is not so hard to accept that 'Obstructed' is terminology, requiring us to looking back at the 25% Rule to understand what it is requesting from us, and then try to figure out what the Authors meant by 'Partially Obstructed.' At this point in time, I'm quite willing to support the concept that Obstructed, 25% Obstructed and Partially Obstructed are three different Terminologies which all reference back to the very same thing. The fact that the Rulebook has multiple Authors is pretty obvious, so having three different pieces of Terminology all referring back to the 25% Obstructed Rule is not just plausible... it is to be expected given the 'ceremonial title' that Editors get in Game Workshop.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Right here:

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save" (The Shooting Phase chapter, Cover saves section).


If a model is in cover it will be entitled to a cover save.

the rules most certainly do say that "simply being 'in cover' is enough to provide a cover save"

You skip the next paragraph that proves your point incorrect. That requires 25% obscurement for a cover save.

The term "partiallly obscured" is also used in the Units in Cover section. ""3 Orks (circled in red) have a 4+ cover save as at least one firing model has his line of sight partially obscured by the ruin"" So "partially obscured" means at least 25%.

I proved that being in cover =entitled to a cover save, and the line that states "even if it is completely visible to the firer." trumps the 25% rule, as clearly, you do not need 25% coverage if shooting through the gaps of a unit.

"if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer."

You proved that partially obscured and partially hidden are terms that mean 25% obscured.

DeathReaper has it right.

Aside from indirect fire weapons and the two explicitly enumerated exceptions mentioned earlier allowing you to shoot over a unit, all shots travel through the gaps in the example below.

-------A1------
B5----------B6
-------C2------


Shots from A or C firing at C or A go through the gaps between unit B's models, even if B is grots and C is a stompa. If you want to HIWPI or house rule it, that's fine. You can even allow it RAW by writing up a datasheet for "Cover for units behind other units", but RAW you get a 5+.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Right here:

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save" (The Shooting Phase chapter, Cover saves section).


If a model is in cover it will be entitled to a cover save.

the rules most certainly do say that "simply being 'in cover' is enough to provide a cover save"

So.... according to your assertion. A model 'partially hidden' is thus 'in cover' and will always get a cover save. Right?

A model with 10% hidden is 'partially hidden' and is thus 'in cover' and thus will get a cover save.

So now the only way your argument works is if being 10% hidden confers a cover save. Which, of course, it doesn't. Which means your assertion is proven false.

The mistake you made is by skipping over the phrase "Where this is the case..." Which states it isn't *always* the case.... sometimes being in cover does not provide a cover save. (apparently it doesn't shield enough against falling debris, but the exact reason doesn't matter.) And we *know* it isn't always true, because you can be 'partially hidden' and *not* get a cover save. (thus you can be 'in cover' and not get a cover save)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
they are designed to grant us a Boolean to know a True or False state.

Please quote the rule that states this is the *only* use for determining LoS.
Then please explain how if LoS is 'only a boolean' that we figure out things like obscured, and cover saves...
Then please explain how using LoS to determine the above, is any different than determining elevation.

Elevation, however, can only be calculated using measurements and mathematical formulation to determine the exact position of an object in relation to other objects.

I know that a WK is elevated compared to a marine. I didn't need to measure and I didn't need a formula. Because that is what "elevated" means.... I can trace a line from the head of the WK to the head (or foot) of the marine, and see that it is in line of sight, is not obscured, and is elevated.
You are the one trying to make this overly complicated.

So even if we assume Elevation does not need to be defined by any particular Written Rule, we are still bound by the Rules which do govern how we go about taking Measurements in this game. This is problematic because those Rules, like so many of Game Workshop's, do not take the Model's height into consideration.

You keep saying this... but you can never provide any rule that actually supports this.

It is a really simple process, you pick a point on the body of the firing model, you then determine if you have LoS to the target, and you determine if it goes "over" or "through" an intervening unit. For the life of me I can't figure out why you keep trying to bring 'mathematical formulas' into this simple process.

It also shows you do not understand how the Line of Sight to Intervening Model argument actually words from a Written perspective, so please allow me to assist.

Oh gee.... I can't wait.... Please, oh PLEASE assist me....

The reason why a Line of Sight passing over top of a Model would not trigger a Cover Save is because the Rule specifies 'Through' the gap. That argument is not that the Line is somehow meeting the requirements of 'elevation' to except it from the Intervening Model Rule. That argument is to state that the Intervening Model Rule is not triggered at all and therefore the Cover Save is never granted to begin with. Should you want to switch your stance to that one, I will simply let the matter go because my entire reply chain to you has been about the fact Elevation is completely meaningless as an Exemption to this Rule without a definition.

Wait... did you even read the rule. There *is no* elevation exemption... you have made that up in your mind. The 'exemption' is "if the shots go over the unit". *THAT* is the 'exemption'... elevation is just one way that the above *might* happen. Being elevated does not *do* anything. The *only* thing that matters is if the shots go over the intervening unit......

But yeah, thanks for the 'assist'....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
[
The term "partiallly obscured" is also used in the Units in Cover section. ""3 Orks (circled in red) have a 4+ cover save as at least one firing model has his line of sight partially obscured by the ruin"" So "partially obscured" means at least 25%.

No, it does not. Models in Ruins have no need to be obscured 25%; thus they would get the cover save if only 5% obscured. (or even not obscured)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
See, it is not so hard to accept that 'Obstructed' is terminology, requiring us to looking back at the 25% Rule to understand what it is requesting from us, and then try to figure out what the Authors meant by 'Partially Obstructed.' At this point in time, I'm quite willing to support the concept that Obstructed, 25% Obstructed and Partially Obstructed are three different Terminologies which all reference back to the very same thing. The fact that the Rulebook has multiple Authors is pretty obvious, so having three different pieces of Terminology all referring back to the 25% Obstructed Rule is not just plausible... it is to be expected given the 'ceremonial title' that Editors get in Game Workshop.

You KEEP SAYING THAT... and I keep asking you to provide *any* proof... you *say* there are examples of them being interchangeable... but you have *never* actually presented one.

Please either (finally) present some supporting evidence, or stop stating the provably false.

Partially hidden means 25% or more hidden.

in cover means it is eligible for a cover save.