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.

Before i start im not sure if this is the right forum to post this in, anyways at my FLGS most if not all people don't use the +3 cover save for really obscured vehicles shown in the 5th edition rulebook and would like to know if the majority of the community do or don't use this rule.

Only if they cannot see any of the facing they are firing at, do they get a 3+ cover

Just a blanket 4+ cover helps prevent a lot of arguments, saves time, ect

saxx wrote:Only if they cannot see any of the facing they are firing at, do they get a 3+ cover

Just a blanket 4+ cover helps prevent a lot of arguments, saves time, ect

I think that i why alot of people don't use this rule tbh.

I use the rule. . .if it applies. Rarely can I not see the facing I am firing at.

saxx wrote:Only if they cannot see any of the facing they are firing at, do they get a 3+ cover

Just a blanket 4+ cover helps prevent a lot of arguments, saves time, ect

But Really everyone i have spoken to is ok with this rule as it makes perfect sense, having a vehicle over 90% obscured would be a lot harder to hit and all of my opponents have allowed me a 3+ cover as i allow them a 3+ cover if they claim it too, you have just gotta get the people who aren't picky and have a bit of common sense.

I use it when the situation is right but you almost never see this done. A 3+ cover saveis really good, just ask GK with shrouding.

Yeah, 90% covered is still a 4+ save. You ony get a 3+ if you cannot see the side you are facing at all, but can still see the vehicle, which only happens in the rarest of circumstances.

I go by 4+ unless you can't see the facing you are shooting at, then it's 3+

I just play the actual rule, in the rare occasion it comes up.

IF you cannot see any of the facing you are in, but can see another, you can shoot at that facing with a 3+ cover save granted. Not difficult.

GoDz KI11JOY x wrote:.... if the majority of the community do or don't use this rule.

Are you asking if some of us like to arbitrarily disregard certain rules?

Of course, we use the rule you are talking about.....when it applies. Everything else seems odd, unless you have agreed with your opponent not to use said rule beforehand.

Steelmage99 wrote:

GoDz KI11JOY x wrote:.... if the majority of the community do or don't use this rule.

Are you asking if some of us like to arbitrarily disregard certain rules?

Of course, we use the rule you are talking about.....when it applies. Everything else seems odd, unless you have agreed with your opponent not to use said rule beforehand.

Well i just find it odd that at my FLGS too many people seems to have no knowledge of it and some just don't use it for obvious reasons, they don't just ignore it because they fell like it or they feel it isn't important as that would be cheating, I think some people don't use it because it can cause arguments way too easily.

No, not really. Do you also find you get into arguments over whether a vehicle or MC is 50% covered?

I have rarely seen a case where the 3+ save applies to a vehicle, but when that situation does arise the rule should be followed.

It happens about 1 in 10 games, which is about right if youre playing on tables with a sufficient miz of scenery.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, not really. Do you also find you get into arguments over whether a vehicle or MC is 50% covered?

Can't say it hasn't happened before, but it isn't as hard to tell if something will get a +4 cover rather than a +3 cover.

Not really - can you see the facing you are in? If the answer is yes, you determine if the target is 50% covered or more - in which case it gets a 4+ save. If not, no save. If the initial answer was no, then you can only shoot the vehicle if you can see another facing - meaning you get a 3+ save.

Not tricky, not in my experience across a few hundred gamers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not really - can you see the facing you are in? If the answer is yes, you determine if the target is 50% covered or more - in which case it gets a 4+ save. If not, no save. If the initial answer was no, then you can only shoot the vehicle if you can see another facing - meaning you get a 3+ save.

Not tricky, not in my experience across a few hundred gamers.

Your way of figuring out the difference between a +3 cover and +4 cover due to obscurities is a good one and simple, however it doesn't explain clearly in the BRB how you can claim a +3 cover apart from being massively obscured, see how there could be confusion.

Huh? It DOES explain it!

If you cannot see the facing you are in, AT ALL, you cannot fire at the vehicle (it s out of LOS) - the *exception* being if you CAN see another facing. Then you fire at the facing you can see, with a 3+ cover save.
Its that simple

nosferatu1001 wrote:Huh? It DOES explain it!

If you cannot see the facing you are in, AT ALL, you cannot fire at the vehicle (it s out of LOS) - the *exception* being if you CAN see another facing. Then you fire at the facing you can see, with a 3+ cover save.
Its that simple

No need to be a dick about it mate i know this thread is meant to get "pretty heated" but people like you unleashing some nerd rage over something so trivial, really can't you act more mature about someone getting a rule wrong it happens to everyone at some point you just have to accept it.

Actually it is pretty easy to force a 3+ cover save. If you have at least one piece of LOS-blocking terrain on the table (there should be more than one) you can turn i.e. a chimera with the side to the wall so that the whole side is covered. If the enemy sneaks around the corner to shoot you, he will completely see the front, but you will have quite a good arc for a 3+ cover save.

So you give the enemy 3 possibilities:

not shooting, because there is no LOS

shooting the front with a 3+ save

picking another target

a hard choice if the chimera is important

Perhaps you didnt get my tone.

I'm expressing concern over your impression its about "how obscured" you are - it isnt based on that at all, and the rulebook is very clear on this rule. Its even easier to determine "cant see it at all" than it is to determine 50% or not for the usual 4+.

I'd suggest you go an calm down.

Please nosferatu lets keep this discussion positive, your tone was quite negative and a patronising one at that, just because someone has more experience they don't have to talk to people in such a ridiculous manner.

The reason he's getting frustrated is because he has tried to explain it in more than one post. This rule is clear cut. It is not difficult to understand. So, when someone seems to be posting in rebuttal to a clear rule, it gets tedious.

Nos is spot on.

When shooting at an obscured vehicle can you see the facing you are shooting at?

No...3+ cover save.
Yes...4+ cover save.

It doesn't matter if the facing you are shooting at has 50% cover or 99% cover. It's a 4+ save regardless. Only if the facing is completely obscured do you get the 3+ save.

Cheers guys for all the comments and explaining this rule in greater detail

Generally, the 3+ cover situation only comes up if you are using lots of buildings. in which case it can be quite common for you to see the front armor of a vehicle, but be in its side arc.


and don't even talk about GK vehicles in this situation with Shrouding. 2+ cover FTW!!!

Grey Templar wrote:Generally, the 3+ cover situation only comes up if you are using lots of buildings.

Or if you shield a vehicle with another vehicle of the same type.

My friend field 3(More in situations where he can)Vindicators in this formation.With any luck there is enough buildings to protect the side as well


----------------------------= Siege Shields
UUUUUUUUUUUUUU=Vindicators.
________________=Wall


You can basically only fire on the AV13 front,and TBH,3 Vindis in this formation looks good,with all the Shields forming a wall,dotted with Cannons.

GoDz KI11JOY x wrote:Before i start im not sure if this is the right forum to post this in, anyways at my FLGS most if not all people don't use the +3 cover save for really obscured vehicles shown in the 5th edition rulebook and would like to know if the majority of the community do or don't use this rule.

The way the poll is written is if alot of the vehicle is obscured do you give a 3+ to which I have to answer no. I give a 4+ as long as 50% or more is obscured. Now should I be in say the front arc of a vehcile but only able to see the side arc then yes my opponent would get a 3+ cover as per the BRB. It does not matter how much is covered (assuming at least 50%) but rather can I see the face of the vehicle that I'm firing at.

the obscured rules in the BRB say that a vehicle gets a cover save if more than 50% of the facing is blocked/obscured. You can get the 3+ cover for shooting at a facing you are not in, but that is only the case if the firer can't see ANY of the facing they are in (at least that's how I've played it). So in short I answered that I do not give the 3+ for 90% obscured cause its not part of the way the rules work