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.

Ok, well I believe that the answer to this question is yes, but I just wanted to give a scenario and ask the question just to make sure I had read and understood it properly as I hate playing rules wrong unless they are houserules.

The rule book basically says that when you target a vehicle, if 50% of the facing your are targetting is behind cover then the vehicle gets the appropriate cover for what is covering it, 3+ if a building, 4+ if ruins, and so on.


Scenario:
A Predator is sticking out from a building/ruin nose first and side on to the enemy at an angle. My opponent targets the Predator with his lascannon. The model firing the lascannon draws line of sight to the Predator and due to the angle of the Predator to the firing model is forced to target the side armour. The model can see the front of the vehicle clearly and unhindered, however the side armour is 50% behind the building/ruin.

Does this mean that the Predator "does" get a cover save against the shot, which "if" failed will go against the side armour and if "passed" nullifies the shot? Despite the fact that the model firing can see all of the front armour and less than 50% of the side armour, but over all, more than 50% of the "entire!" model can actually be seen. Just not 50% of the facing that is being shot at.

I feel this is one of those "dduuuhh, well obviously" moments but I'd rather play it right and look the fool, than play it wrong.

Cheers all

You HAVE to shoot at the facing you are in.

The facing you are in has a cover save. If the lascannon causes a penetratring or glancing hit to the side armour THEN you roll the cover save. If passed the hit is ignored, if failed you roll on the damage chart.

Nos has it right, you have to shoot the facing that you are in. The only exception is when the facing that you are in is 100% obscured by LOS and one of the other sides is visible. In that particular case the target is granted a 3+ coversave to account for the angle of the shot.

....and you take the shot against the other facing that you CAN see.

Wonderful, thank you both kindly

Why can't you take a shot at the other facing and give them a 3+ cover save?

I know it's not in the rules but I'm almost willing to take a 3+ cover save.

Because you cannot see the facing *at all* - you have 0% chance of hitting and doing damage, not 33 1/3rd

Ok so how about this situation:

Same scenerio, except the predator side armor shot that you have to take is at an extreme angle?

I played a game where my opponent took a cover save because his vehicle was at an extreme angle, and even through I could see the entire side it was a much smaller profile.

Is this correct?

Elitest Jerk wrote:Why can't you take a shot at the other facing and give them a 3+ cover save?

I know it's not in the rules but I'm almost willing to take a 3+ cover save.

Not sure what you mean

From my understanding of the rules (which has now been confirmed) is the shot hits the facing that you are in. In my example above the angle of the predator put the side armour on display, so even though you can see the front armour, hits are resolved from the side armour. If you can see over 50% of the side then you don't get a save and if it is 50% in cover you do get a save, the save being applicable to what is covering it.

The only way that you would get the 3+ save as said above by "hamsterwheel" is if the entire side armour was hidden so therefore the hit would be taken on front armour and a 3+ cover save given to account for the awkward angle it is being hit from.

mrfantastical wrote:Ok so how about this situation:

Same scenerio, except the predator side armor shot that you have to take is at an extreme angle?

I played a game where my opponent took a cover save because his vehicle was at an extreme angle, and even through I could see the entire side it was a much smaller profile.

Is this correct?

If you are in the facing you can see, in this case the side (which accoriding to your diagram it looks like you can), and the vehicle is not 50% obscured, it gets no cover save.
Re-read page 62 on vehicles and cover - obscured targets. Then show the page to your friend.

Yep - regardless of how "extreme" the angle is, if your view of the side is not 50% obscured no cover save is recieved.

But if Let's say the vehicle side that I'm facing I can't see at all, and there is a vehicle side that is visable to me, but I can't normally fire on it.

I can still fire at that armor facing but the defender gets a 3+ cover correct? I read that somewhere on one of the forums, just wanted to clarify.

mrfantastical wrote:But if Let's say the vehicle side that I'm facing I can't see at all, and there is a vehicle side that is visable to me, but I can't normally fire on it.

I can still fire at that armor facing but the defender gets a 3+ cover correct? I read that somewhere on one of the forums, just wanted to clarify.

That is indeed correct

If you are absolutely unable to target the facing that correlates to the relative quadrant you are in... then you use an armour facing you can see for penetration purposes, and it gets a 3+ cover save regardless.

Under normal circumstances the side being targeted must be 50% covered to receive a save, and no other cover the vehicle has on other facings is taken into account for that unit's shooting.