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 want to know if it's possible to measure coherency through impassible terrain.

Allow me to elaborate:

So we know that 1) infantry must maintain 2" coherency and 2) vehicle squadrons must maintain 4" coherency, and that both of these things can claim a cover save if they're 50% obscured by terrain of some manner.

So my question is this: say you've got a wall. It's a thin wall, but it's at least 4 or 5 inches high. High enough to obscure a vehicle in a squadron... so if you had a squadron of two vehicles, and one was behind it, you'd get a cover save for the whole squadron.

Can you do the following: place one vehicle behind the wall and the other in front of it, and measure 4" coherency through what is effectively impassible terrain, and claim a cover save?

Is this legal?

Yes. Terrain has no effect on unit coherency.

forkbanger wrote:Yes. Terrain has no effect on unit coherency.

+1

This leads to the strange scenario of 1 Space Marine with a missile launcher out in the open while his 4 buddies are hiding behind the wall. 4+ cover if you shoot at him and zero cover for the vehicle he is firing at.

^ That right there is what made me wonder about the legality of this maneuver.

Good to know. Thanks guys.

That scenario is exactly why you can kill the entire squad while only being able to see one guy in this edition.

Truth, although LoS wouldn't be my concern, it'd be getting that lovely cover save. As long as I can exploit this rule in order to get that, I'm happy.

In fact, I just had an idea - Ordnance batteries (don't have my codex on me) combine ordnance barrage weapons with weapons that fire direction (or do both), do they not? If there's a weapon that does not fire indirectly in that entry, it could be used in this scenario.

Then again, that might be a great way to get your indirect firer killed.

Anyway, I believe the question has been answered, this thread can be locked at your convenience.

This may more of a proposed rule or general discussion question, but how do folks think it would impact game balance if instead of working as described above, the ML guy got no cover save but only the ML guy could take wounds?

Didn't it work like that in one of the previous editions?

Kolath wrote:This may more of a proposed rule or general discussion question, but how do folks think it would impact game balance if instead of working as described above, the ML guy got no cover save but only the ML guy could take wounds?

Didn't it work like that in one of the previous editions?

v4, IIRC.

I think I like it better the way it is now.

Kolath wrote:This may more of a proposed rule or general discussion question, but how do folks think it would impact game balance if instead of working as described above, the ML guy got no cover save but only the ML guy could take wounds?

Didn't it work like that in one of the previous editions?

That's exactly how it worked in previous editions.

The problem with it is that it also opens the door to 'range sniping' which was the common practice of placing your unit so that only those models in the enemy unit that you wanted to kill were in LOS and/or range, so that you could pick off the more troublesome parts of the unit without having to waste shots on the cannon fodder.

The current rules reflect the fact that your attacks affect the unit as a whole, and remove range sniping from the equation.

Kolath wrote:This may more of a proposed rule or general discussion question, but how do folks think it would impact game balance if instead of working as described above, the ML guy got no cover save but only the ML guy could take wounds?

Didn't it work like that in one of the previous editions?

What that led to was people maneuvering their firing models so that they only had range/LOS to the models in the enemy unit they wanted to kill thereby allowing them to 'snipe' important models out of the unit. This also had the side effect of making you extremely paranoid about where in the unit your specialty models were located, because if they were too far forward they could get range sniped or isolated in certain areas they could get LOS sniped, etc. I know for me, this meant I had to take more time every movement phase worrying about the individual model placement within each unit, which created a longer game overall.

IMHO, removal of these types of scenarios is one of the very best changes to the game that 5th edition made.

Ah, I can see how that would happen. Hehe, luckily I missed that in the jump straight from 2nd edition to 5th! Thanks for the explanation.

BlueDagger wrote:

forkbanger wrote:Yes. Terrain has no effect on unit coherency.

+1

This leads to the strange scenario of 1 Space Marine with a missile launcher out in the open while his 4 buddies are hiding behind the wall. 4+ cover if you shoot at him and zero cover for the vehicle he is firing at.

Isn't there a rule that says if you can't see the majority of the squad with TLOS, that the cover save is 3+? I'm at work and don't have my book on me.

Synnister wrote:Isn't there a rule that says if you can't see the majority of the squad with TLOS, that the cover save is 3+?

No. The cover save depends on what is providing the cover, as always.

Synnister wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:

forkbanger wrote:Yes. Terrain has no effect on unit coherency.

+1

This leads to the strange scenario of 1 Space Marine with a missile launcher out in the open while his 4 buddies are hiding behind the wall. 4+ cover if you shoot at him and zero cover for the vehicle he is firing at.

Isn't there a rule that says if you can't see the majority of the squad with TLOS, that the cover save is 3+? I'm at work and don't have my book on me.

You're probably thinking about vehicles where if you can't see the arc you are in but can still see the vehicle it gets a 3+ save.

insaniak wrote:

Kolath wrote:Didn't it work like that in one of the previous editions?

That's exactly how it worked in previous editions.

The problem with it is that it also opens the door to 'range sniping'.

There was also the "rapid fire trap" - since only the guy in range of the 12" double shots could get hit people would tempt others to take a shot by putting a less valuable model up front. It worked well if the other was hesitant to move, for example well dug in behind a wall or something. How funny, we all shot at the same guy...

If I might indulge my "playing-for-fun" side... It also had the unfortunate effect of making even the most heroic sergeants and commanders act like Skaven and lead from the rear.

Allowing us to remove casualties from wherever we please,have made it possible to lead from the front thus allowing said models to actually fight.