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.

A situation recently came up in a game I was playing in which my opponent and I could not decide if a unit should receive a cover save. He had a unit of 10 necron warriors shooting at 9 wyches hiding behind a monolith. 5 of the 10 warriors could see 5 or more of the wyches, and the remaining 5 warriors could see 4 or less. Should the wyches have been able to use their cover save? We played it as a yes, but that ruling determined the outcome of the game, so it was important, and I want to make sure we get it right in the future if it happens again.

IMHO in such a situation is always better to go with a 5+ save instead of the 4+... RAW says "if more than half of the unit is in cover the unit is considered in cover" but often it's difficult to really determine it especially if units are close...

Btw in the situation described by you the unit is not in cover since more than half of the wyches are visible by the crons...

For the future I recommend the 5+ solution when in doubt... and for god's sake... avoid post match rule recrimination...

Oh no no, no recrimination involved. It was a friendly game, and I was the one that benefitted from the ruling. I just want to know if we did it right. So by your logic, if ONE of the warriors could see at least 5 of the wyches, they would get no cover?

According to the rulebook pg.22, if the majority of the firing unit has a clear shot to the majority of the unit getting shot at, they get no cover save. Since 5 out of 10 is technically not the majority, I think that RAW they do get the save. It does also say though, if you have any kind of dispute or it isn't clear, go with a 5+ save as punkow said.

lledwey already quoted the rule. In this case at least 6 of the warriors should be able to see 5 of the wyches to negate cover. You could however omit shooting with one of the warriors so 5 of 9 warriors have clear LOS to 5 wyches thus negating cover.

No No No... The majority of the firing UNIT must have a clear LOS... you can't forgo some model shooting to avoid this... The only situation in which I allow this is when a heavy weapon has clear LOS but the rest of the unit don't ... but, let's make it clear, this is a house rule...

You can choose which models fire(pg16 bottom right) and you only check LOS for firing models, so yes you can simply choose to have less models firing to deny a cover save. Of course you would have to declare this before rolling any dice.

Lets actually quote the Rules concerned.

Page 22, Units partially in cover, Second Paragraph: "If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover, then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover and all of its models may take cover saves."

It then goes on to speak of the firing unit:

Page 22, Units partially in cover, Fourth Paragraph: "Of course being in cover or not often depends on the position of the firer as well as the target. If only one model is shooting, it will be easy to tell how many models in the target unit are in cover from the firer's point of view. If multiple models are shooting, you will need to work out how many models are in cover from the majority of the firing models that are in range."

So you see, punkow, The Models actually firing are the only ones that matter for determining if they can clearly see 50% or more of the Target unit, by model. If the necrons do not fire with one of the models that cannot see more than 50% of the target unit, or there is no majority of firing models that cannot see more than 50%; then the unit gets no save.

In the scenario given by the OP; no save is granted. And punkow, maybe you should start allowing the game to be played by the rules.

I think it's pretty clear from a RAI perspective that you can't have one model not shoot in order to negate a cover save. Seems ridiculous to me, and I would never play it that way.

Edit: Thought about it some more. It makes sense in some situations, for sure.

Excepting that it is not even debatable via the RAW.

This isn't one of those little RAW loopholes like Wraithlords not having eyes on the Models, this is an incredibly clear and restated "only firing models matter"

Not only do only the firing models matter, but also only the models in range matter(again specifically stated in the Quoted text above); so if you are firing at a Unit that would be 50% in cover from every model, and 2/3 of your unit is out of range, then you get no cover(lets go with a unit of 10 marines firing at 10 Orks as an example; 5 of the orks are in cover to 6 of the marines. The Marines moved and 2 of the marines that would grant cover to the Orks are 12.5" away from the nearest Ork; the Orks are now denied cover per the rules since the majority of marines in range can see more than 50% of the Orks).

Another example: we have a Guard unit that is 90% out of LOS to an Eldar unit in the open; the only model in the Guard unit is a Heavy Bolter HWT; the HB is the only gun firing because it is the only model in LOS(the rest are behind a Building or something); the Eldar unit would have no Cover from the HB because it has Clear LOS to every model in the Eldar unit and is the only model even firing.(This is the fully italicized sentnce from the fourth paragraph quoted above).

So again it is pretty clear that both RAW & RAI; you can simply not shoot with 1 model in order to deny a cover save.

OOOOOH... RAW madness again... If we keep it to RAW all models "in range" matters... So you can make only some models fire but still if the models not firing are "in range" they matter anyway... or am I wrong? (of course I'm sure you will find some sentence proving how bad I'm wrong)...

... Still I know that the HB example follows the rule... you can choose to fire only the heavy weapon of course. The point is... in the example made by the OP avoiding to fire with one warrior to deny cover save is a very bad exploitation of the rules IMHO... at least you will show very low sportmanship... And do not start bothering me with how much you are following the rules... the point is totally another...

So the question is... Why don't you stop telling others how to play and you start to think how much you need to win your toy soldier game?

Yes punkow, it appears that kel is correct, despite his general douchey abrasiveness with his responses.

I know the rules allow this and that I was wrong about the RAW interpretation... and even when I was convinced that such thing was RAW impossible I played it that way ... when it makes sense... exploiting rules in such a way is useful only to become definitely TFG...

punkow wrote:So the question is... Why don't you stop telling others how to play and you start to think how much you need to win your toy soldier game?

You appear to have completely misinterpreted just what is happening here. You made a statement about the rules. It was pointed out that your take on the rules in this case was wrong.

That's not 'telling others how to play'... it's simply discussing the rules, which is what this forum is for.

If you can't do that in a civil fashion, I would recommend not participating further in this thread.

Come on insaniak. You have to admit that kel was unnecessarily abrasive with his response. It's understandable for punkow to get defensive about it.

I don't see anything particularly abrasive in Kel's post, no. What I did see was one poster getting worked up when his take on the rules was pointed out to be incorrect.

It's not the end of the world. It's a big game, and we all get different impressions on how different rules work, and how we think those rules should work. Accept it, and move on... ultimately, if someone on the other side of the planet plays the game differently to how you think it should be played, that doesn't have to have any effect whatsoever on your own games.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
So you see, punkow, The Models actually firing are the only ones that matter for determining if they can clearly see 50% or more of the Target unit, by model. If the necrons do not fire with one of the models that cannot see more than 50% of the target unit, or there is no majority of firing models that cannot see more than 50%; then the unit gets no save.

In the scenario given by the OP; no save is granted. And punkow, maybe you should start allowing the game to be played by the rules.

This is almost identical to what you scolded punkow for saying, with the only difference being that Kel is correct in his position. If you're gonna scold one person for acting inappropriately, you shouldn't ignore someone else who did the same thing first. That's all.

Thanks to everyone for helping to clear up this rules issue.

Nate668 wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:
So you see, punkow, The Models actually firing are the only ones that matter for determining if they can clearly see 50% or more of the Target unit, by model. If the necrons do not fire with one of the models that cannot see more than 50% of the target unit, or there is no majority of firing models that cannot see more than 50%; then the unit gets no save.

In the scenario given by the OP; no save is granted. And punkow, maybe you should start allowing the game to be played by the rules.

This is almost identical to what you scolded punkow for saying, with the only difference being that Kel is correct in his position. If you're gonna scold one person for acting inappropriately, you shouldn't ignore someone else who did the same thing first. That's all.

Thanks to everyone for helping to clear up this rules issue.

No, what I said is that the actual rules support what Punkow would "Allow" and far more than that. The last line, which is what I am assuming you are taking offense for Punkow by proxy for, was in relation to this statement by Punkow:

punkow wrote: The only situation in which I allow this is when a heavy weapon has clear LOS but the rest of the unit don't ... but, let's make it clear, this is a house rule...

He made 2 fallacious statements here: 1 is that he would only "Allow" the game to be played by the rules in 1 very specific instance, and 2 that this printed rule from the book is a "House rule".

I will admit from time-to-time, I can come off as abrasive; this is simply the nature of me refusing to sugar-coat my posts in YMDC; you will find that in actual discussions outside of Clear-text to fallacious-statements, I am rather polite and level headed. This is likely the reason that while I have had many posters complain about my abrasiveness in matter-of-fact statements I have never received so much as a warning from the mods. In cases where I am wrong, or enough textual evidence from the rulebooks can be given to refute my claims, I will freely admit that I am wrong; and the thread can be continued amicably.

I am sorry if you find my "general douchey abrasiveness with responses" unfavorable, but I would like to call your attention to some text below the link to the YMDC forum:

Dakkadakka wrote:Want to discuss 40k rules interpretations? This is the place. Caution: Can get heated, but also can be informative.

In response to Punkow's responses: Tactical options clearly written into a rule are not rules exploits, they are playing by the rules, and using those rules to formulate good tactics. That said, I do not always adhere fully to the RAW when the RAW is poorly written, or can be poorly applied(such as the already referenced Wraithlord lack of eyes). I play this game to have fun with my friends, or random strangers; I prefer to play by the rules and know those rules so that I can engage in fun and creative tactics, true no one likes to lose, but I do not mind it when I do(I often create lists that are conceptually "poor" just for the challenge to find some tactics that work for them).

Just wondering whether anyone can clarify something else that's kind of linked to this scenario:

Say I have a squad of 5 Terminators, 4 with TH/SS and one with Lightning Claws and a Cyclone Missile Launcher (it's Deathwing in case you wondered). If I placed the 4 TH/SS behind a building and out of line of sight and left just the Cyclone Terminator out in the open, still in coherency, so he could fire at things, can I allocate wounds to the TH/SS termies that are behind the building if an opponent fires at the only termie they can see - in this case, the LC/Cyclone termie?

@ColdSadHungry

Yes that is a legal tactic.

DeathReaper wrote:@ColdSadHungry

Yes that is a legal tactic.

Cool stuff, thanks for your response!

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Nate668 wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:
So you see, punkow, The Models actually firing are the only ones that matter for determining if they can clearly see 50% or more of the Target unit, by model. If the necrons do not fire with one of the models that cannot see more than 50% of the target unit, or there is no majority of firing models that cannot see more than 50%; then the unit gets no save.

In the scenario given by the OP; no save is granted. And punkow, maybe you should start allowing the game to be played by the rules.

This is almost identical to what you scolded punkow for saying, with the only difference being that Kel is correct in his position. If you're gonna scold one person for acting inappropriately, you shouldn't ignore someone else who did the same thing first. That's all.

Thanks to everyone for helping to clear up this rules issue.

No, what I said is that the actual rules support what Punkow would "Allow" and far more than that. The last line, which is what I am assuming you are taking offense for Punkow by proxy for, was in relation to this statement by Punkow:

punkow wrote: The only situation in which I allow this is when a heavy weapon has clear LOS but the rest of the unit don't ... but, let's make it clear, this is a house rule...

He made 2 fallacious statements here: 1 is that he would only "Allow" the game to be played by the rules in 1 very specific instance, and 2 that this printed rule from the book is a "House rule".

I will admit from time-to-time, I can come off as abrasive; this is simply the nature of me refusing to sugar-coat my posts in YMDC; you will find that in actual discussions outside of Clear-text to fallacious-statements, I am rather polite and level headed. This is likely the reason that while I have had many posters complain about my abrasiveness in matter-of-fact statements I have never received so much as a warning from the mods. In cases where I am wrong, or enough textual evidence from the rulebooks can be given to refute my claims, I will freely admit that I am wrong; and the thread can be continued amicably.

I am sorry if you find my "general douchey abrasiveness with responses" unfavorable, but I would like to call your attention to some text below the link to the YMDC forum:

Dakkadakka wrote:Want to discuss 40k rules interpretations? This is the place. Caution: Can get heated, but also can be informative.

Cool story, bro. You already got a "you're right" and a "thank you" from me. You're not gonna get an "oh no, you're not a douche" no matter how many douchey paragraphs you type. Let's just leave it at that and move on, shall we?

Not only legal but required. If the termies were fired upon and recieved 5 wounds, one would have to be allocated to every one of them.

And reported Nate. Totally unnecessary comments there.

KK most certainly is NOT a douche, regardless of your opinion otherwise