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.

Oh neat. I'm totally wrong. Thanks.

This at least 50% obscured rule can create bizarre situations. In the picture the dread does get cover when the intercessors fire at it. Its within the ruin (base is touching the ruin, which qualifies as within), and its 50% obscured by the rhino. If the dread is only 0,5" to the left (not within the ruin) the intercessors view of it doesnt change much, its still at least 50% obscured, but it does not get cover.

And the moral of that story is “Park more carefully, Brother.”


Joking apart, the pictorial representations are super useful.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Indeed, the pictures are very helpful, thanx p5freak

Wait, how the actual crap is a model supposed to be hovering above ruins but not have its base in the ruins? Like, do you have it suspended from the ceiling and the base off at Arby's getting lunch of something? Like, seriously, when is the hull ever going to be in terrain, but somehow the base isn't? That makes zero sense.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Wait, how the actual crap is a model supposed to be hovering above ruins but not have its base in the ruins? Like, do you have it suspended from the ceiling and the base off at Arby's getting lunch of something? Like, seriously, when is the hull ever going to be in terrain, but somehow the base isn't? That makes zero sense.

You must never have seen a Raider.

Raiders, and some other flying vehicles, have hulls that jut out WELL beyond their bases. It is thus possible for a part of the hull to be over a ruin's base, and thus "within" the ruin, while the base does not touch or overlap the ruin.

A wing or such could be in the area above the ruins while the base is still outside. Think of having the front end of an Eldar vehicle (Falcon, Wave Serpent, etc) sticking above the ruins while the base is behind the ruin. Of course, in a situation like that they'd be more likely to set the vehicle up so that it's touching the ruin to try to get it obscured if possible.

Exactly. And to be honest, if you start down that path do you consider dynamically-posed Marine Sergeants to get Cover for having a chainsword sticking out of cover but their base not in? They sure don’t, so best not start making arbitrary divisions when there’s a simple, clear way to be in cover.

The simplest way to get cover for non INFANTRY would be only at least 50% obscured from the shooters view.

 p5freak wrote:
The simplest way to get cover for non INFANTRY would be only at least 50% obscured from the shooters view.

...which isn’t the current rules though. They need to be on/within/in terrain with appropriate rules too.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
The simplest way to get cover for non INFANTRY would be only at least 50% obscured from the shooters view.

...which isn’t the current rules though. They need to be on/within/in terrain with appropriate rules too.

I know. It would make things easier and give a lot less room for arguments. This simply touching the terrain (the unit doesnt have to inside the terrain) to get cover (if at least 50% obscured) is ridiculous.

 Octopoid wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Wait, how the actual crap is a model supposed to be hovering above ruins but not have its base in the ruins? Like, do you have it suspended from the ceiling and the base off at Arby's getting lunch of something? Like, seriously, when is the hull ever going to be in terrain, but somehow the base isn't? That makes zero sense.

You must never have seen a Raider.

Raiders, and some other flying vehicles, have hulls that jut out WELL beyond their bases. It is thus possible for a part of the hull to be over a ruin's base, and thus "within" the ruin, while the base does not touch or overlap the ruin.

Okay, I see what they're driving at, though I still wonder how often you're going to do that and not just nudge the base into the terrain as well.

Anyway, it's tricky and I don't necessarily know that it can be determined. The Hovering rule for raiders only gives permission to use the hull for measuring "distance and range." Obviously determining if something is "within x inches" is a measurement of distance, but where it's less clear is whether simply determining is something is "within" a ruin is a measurement of distance.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
The simplest way to get cover for non INFANTRY would be only at least 50% obscured from the shooters view.

...which isn’t the current rules though. They need to be on/within/in terrain with appropriate rules too.

I know. It would make things easier and give a lot less room for arguments. This simply touching the terrain (the unit doesnt have to inside the terrain) to get cover (if at least 50% obscured) is ridiculous.

Is it more ridiculous than having to be in terrain at all if you're already 50% obscured?