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.

If a unit shooting at another unit can only see half of one guy whom can be taken as casualties? Just that guy or everyone in the squad?

Everyone in the squad.

You target units, not models.

You need to be able to see at least one model in the unit in order to target that unit. Beyond that, the number of models that you can see only determines whether or not the unit gets a cover save. It has no bearing at all on wound allocation or casualty removal.

I see. Well, that seems kinda stupid.

Clay has it correct, Read Page 24, second paragraph under "Remove Casualties"

It stops people from blocking LoS to all but the special weapons guys and sniping them, trust me, its a good change from 4th ed.

It's also just a part of the gradual shift of 40K from being a model-based skirmish game to being a unit-based army game.

Some stuff gets abstracted to allow for more streamlined gameplay, and to better reflect the fluid nature of the battlefield.

I don't like it. It's realistic and fair for one guys to pop off shots to cover his squad and then get killed for it.
It also leads to some high stakes arguing about how much of that guys ass you can see.
Like that one guy gets a 4+ save but how is the the majority cover. Everyone else should have 1+ save from being completely unseen.

#1 realism has nothing to do with the 40K reul set.

As for fairness, It is done for game balance.

A 1+ save for being unseen with only 1 model seen would over power many close combat based armies.

I'm half joking. Just don't see the logic of like a 20 man squad's cover save being determined by one guy.

The "Logic" is because its for game balance.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:It also leads to some high stakes arguing about how much of that guys ass you can see.

How? It doesn't matter how much of that guy you can see. If you can see him at all, (discounting irrelevancies like banner poles and the like) you have LOS. If you can't see all of him, he is in cover.

Keep in mind as well that being out of sight doesn't mean that you're untouchable. Modern day assault rifles will punch a hole through a brick wall or half an inch of steel plate as if it isn't even there. All those movies where people hide behind trees and cars and the like and are magically protected from incoming fire? Yeah, that doesn't happen.

In 40K, the equivalent of a modern day assault rifle is about on par with the weakest of the ranged weapons seen on the table.

Being able to see one guy from a unit lets an enemy know that somebody is there. This lets them saturate the surrounding area with fire. At that point, standing behind something makes them marginally harder to hit (hence the cover save) but isn't really a lot of protection otherwise.

Couple that with personal sensors, psychic abilities, hyper-acute senses, orbital scanning and magic, and suddenly being out of sight really doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I'm half joking. Just don't see the logic of like a 20 man squad's cover save being determined by one guy.

It's not. Whether or not the unit is a valid target is potentially determined by one guy. Their cover save is determined by whatever they are standing behind.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if in the same scenario if the squad in cover wishes to shoot at the other unit then only that one guy would be able to fire. Yet his whole squad can be hit. How's that fair?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I don't like it. It's realistic and fair for one guys to pop off shots to cover his squad and then get killed for it.

In theory, yes. But I assume you didn't play much 3rd and 4th edition? In those editions, it was completely feasible to use a pair of vehicles to force LOS to only be drawn to one model (usually a heavy weapon trooper or something) in order to force that model to be removed as a casualty. It wasn't particularly hard to prevent the situation (just keep a model in front of or behind a special model), but it was one of those annoying little oddities about those editions of "true LOS". That and range sniping annoyed the hell out of me.

The current situation isn't perfect, but for the reasons Insaniak listed I like it far better now than before.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but if in the same scenario if the squad in cover wishes to shoot at the other unit then only that one guy would be able to fire. Yet his whole squad can be hit. How's that fair?

That's one area where the rules are still a little quirky, and I suspect that will change in later editions. However, at present I believe it's more of a balance issue. In the same way as being able to protect the entire rest of the squad by just having one guy with his head poking out was a little extreme, and conversely being able to 'snipe' specific models was just nasty, having the entire squad able to fire by that one guy poking his head out leads to similar abuses. The current system, while 'unfair' appearing on the surface, forces you to think a little more about how you place your models in cover for the greatest effect.

I've never seen it for the same reason that it's fine that a model can receive wounds in close combat even if he's not in close combat range.

The models are still representation of a fluid, constantly moving battle. So the fact that all the models can receive wounds is to illustrate a model from behind moving up to fill in the place of the model that was just killed. Makes sense to me.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but if in the same scenario if the squad in cover wishes to shoot at the other unit then only that one guy would be able to fire. Yet his whole squad can be hit. How's that fair?

Applying your want for realism...

Hide behind a box. You can't see any bad guys, but they know where you are. Which one of you is more likely to be shot?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but if in the same scenario if the squad in cover wishes to shoot at the other unit then only that one guy would be able to fire. Yet his whole squad can be hit. How's that fair?

Look at it this way... you can also hide 9 tactical troops and snipe with a LC all day... any wounds less than 10, make that LC bullet proof. You're gaining from the deal too.

Grab a 4th or 2nd edition rule set some time and play about 5 games with it... in the end, you'll see that the LoS system makes for better games and less cheese. They better not touch LoS in 6th e, people who have never really played it the other way scare me, as they complain about LoS but have neither experienced what they're actually asking for and don't understand how the alternative(s) works.

LOS and range sniping were a poor, poor part of 4th edition, and what made Lash into such a killer

insaniak wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:It also leads to some high stakes arguing about how much of that guys ass you can see.

How? It doesn't matter how much of that guy you can see. If you can see him at all, (discounting irrelevancies like banner poles and the like) you have LOS. If you can't see all of him, he is in cover.

Keep in mind as well that being out of sight doesn't mean that you're untouchable. Modern day assault rifles will punch a hole through a brick wall or half an inch of steel plate as if it isn't even there. All those movies where people hide behind trees and cars and the like and are magically protected from incoming fire? Yeah, that doesn't happen.

In 40K, the equivalent of a modern day assault rifle is about on par with the weakest of the ranged weapons seen on the table.

Being able to see one guy from a unit lets an enemy know that somebody is there. This lets them saturate the surrounding area with fire. At that point, standing behind something makes them marginally harder to hit (hence the cover save) but isn't really a lot of protection otherwise.

Couple that with personal sensors, psychic abilities, hyper-acute senses, orbital scanning and magic, and suddenly being out of sight really doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.

Well, the cover save makes them harder to wound, not harder to hit. It "should" be taken when the hits are resolved, cover save, then roll the remaining to-wound.

Yeah, many people have observed that. But the mechanical sequence of rolls we have, with the save being the last chance for the owning model to save his model, is more dramatic. It's also in keeping with the roleplaying game term of a Saving Throw, where it's a last-ditch die roll to save your character from danger.

Cheexsta wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I don't like it. It's realistic and fair for one guys to pop off shots to cover his squad and then get killed for it.

In theory, yes. But I assume you didn't play much 3rd and 4th edition? In those editions, it was completely feasible to use a pair of vehicles to force LOS to only be drawn to one model (usually a heavy weapon trooper or something) in order to force that model to be removed as a casualty. It wasn't particularly hard to prevent the situation (just keep a model in front of or behind a special model), but it was one of those annoying little oddities about those editions of "true LOS". That and range sniping annoyed the hell out of me.

The current situation isn't perfect, but for the reasons Insaniak listed I like it far better now than before.

I played a lot of those and that's why I'm realizing I hate this current one. I've never seen this friendly-vehicle-bullet-funnnel probably because it is super Waac. Still, you've already got the counter and of course the real counter is to not play against people like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but if in the same scenario if the squad in cover wishes to shoot at the other unit then only that one guy would be able to fire. Yet his whole squad can be hit. How's that fair?

That's one area where the rules are still a little quirky, and I suspect that will change in later editions. However, at present I believe it's more of a balance issue. In the same way as being able to protect the entire rest of the squad by just having one guy with his head poking out was a little extreme, and conversely being able to 'snipe' specific models was just nasty, having the entire squad able to fire by that one guy poking his head out leads to similar abuses. The current system, while 'unfair' appearing on the surface, forces you to think a little more about how you place your models in cover for the greatest effect.

Bottom line is a squad that is 95% behind a 200 foot high wall of high gloss adamantium is in more danger than one that is 51% behind a chain link fence merely because the fence is porous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lobukia wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but if in the same scenario if the squad in cover wishes to shoot at the other unit then only that one guy would be able to fire. Yet his whole squad can be hit. How's that fair?

Look at it this way... you can also hide 9 tactical troops and snipe with a LC all day... any wounds less than 10, make that LC bullet proof. You're gaining from the deal too.

I guess.
I just find that overall someone who's defending a cityscape will lose a shootout with someone charging across an ice-rink when it should be the other way around.

Bottom line is a squad that is 95% behind a 200 foot high wall of high gloss adamantium is in more danger than one that is 51% behind a chain link fence merely because the fence is porous.

Actually the latter are in more danger - while they can shoot out the cover save is lower,

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bottom line is a squad that is 95% behind a 200 foot high wall of high gloss adamantium is in more danger than one that is 51% behind a chain link fence merely because the fence is porous.

Actually the latter are in more danger - while they can shoot out the cover save is lower,

Huh? Chain link fence squad has 6+ save, adamantium wall guys have no save. Chain link fence guys can fire with whole squad adamantium wall guys shoot with one guy.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bottom line is a squad that is 95% behind a 200 foot high wall of high gloss adamantium is in more danger than one that is 51% behind a chain link fence merely because the fence is porous.

Actually the latter are in more danger - while they can shoot out the cover save is lower,

Huh? Chain link fence squad has 6+ save, adamantium wall guys have no save. Chain link fence guys can fire with whole squad adamantium wall guys shoot with one guy.

What are you going on about? The guys behind the wall have a 4+ save.

Why does the adamantium wall guys have no save?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bottom line is a squad that is 95% behind a 200 foot high wall of high gloss adamantium is in more danger than one that is 51% behind a chain link fence merely because the fence is porous.

Actually the latter are in more danger - while they can shoot out the cover save is lower,

Huh? Chain link fence squad has 6+ save, adamantium wall guys have no save. Chain link fence guys can fire with whole squad adamantium wall guys shoot with one guy.

Erm, presuming ou have followed the rules and defined the cover before the game start, an adamantium wall should have AT LEAST a 4+ save attached to it. You do understand how to calculate cover saves, yes?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bottom line is a squad that is 95% behind a 200 foot high wall of high gloss adamantium is in more danger than one that is 51% behind a chain link fence merely because the fence is porous.

Actually the latter are in more danger - while they can shoot out the cover save is lower,

Huh? Chain link fence squad has 6+ save, adamantium wall guys have no save. Chain link fence guys can fire with whole squad adamantium wall guys shoot with one guy.

... as was said, you're a little off on that. Why would the guys behind the wall not have a save? The unit is more than 50% in cover, so they get a save.

So then the entire squad cannot be seen except one man who is completely in the open then the unit gets a save? Probably a 3+ save because the wall is normally impenetrable?
Ok, I guess I needed to get my head around the fact that something that blocks Los 100% turns into cover if one guy was slow getting there.

Do you not think this also is disadvantageous to those firing from an elevated position? They will probably only be able to bring a few guns to bear while getting quite shot up themselves. Is their any advantage to high ground?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Do you not think this also is disadvantageous to those firing from an elevated position? They will probably only be able to bring a few guns to bear while getting quite shot up themselves. Is their any advantage to high ground?

Better LOS to deny the enemy a cover save. If you get high enough to see over the meatshield units to the guys they're providing cover to (say Termagants providing cover to Warriors) those warriors now don't have a cover save if the termagaunts don't physically block LOS to at least 50% the warriors.

Also harder to reach and assault.

But I want to shoot the leading edge anyway because they are closing on me. If they get close enough I won't be able to see them or do we assume that the models closest to their ledge can shoot straight downwards?