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.

How the heck does this work?

After reading the rulebook and trying to apply the rules, it was still unclear to my foe and I.

If it helps, the scenario involved two landspeeders in a squadron, both of which had some cover from foliage, but neither of which were completely hidden. We decided that one was 50% obscured but not the other. Still not knowing how to work it, we diced off to get cover or not. Also, do vehicles in the same squadron obscure/block LOS to/from same squadron? Can they block each other's weapons?

I can haz help?

Allocate the wound, then take the save if available.

So wounds on the 50% obscured => cover save
Wounds on the other => nothing.

leohart wrote:Allocate the wound, then take the save if available.

So wounds on the 50% obscured => cover save
Wounds on the other => nothing.

That is not correct.

the squadron will all have a cover save or none of them will.

If half or more are 50% or more obscured from the firers viewpoint then the whole squadron will have a cover save.

So roll to hit, roll to Pen, allocate Glances/Pens, take cover saves against Pens, take cover saves against Glances, roll on the damage chart.

Also: "do vehicles in the same squadron obscure/block LOS to/from same squadron?" Clearly answered on P. 64 right column,2nd graph from the top, 2nd sentence.

"Can they block each other's weapons? " Clearly answered on P.64 left column, Shooting phase section 2nd sentence.

leohart wrote:Allocate the wound, then take the save if available.

So wounds on the 50% obscured => cover save
Wounds on the other => nothing.

No, this is 100% incorrect.

1) Work out if each mdoel in the squadron is "in cover" - e.g. 50% covered
2) Determine if at least 50% of the UNIT counts as "in cover", same as you do for ANY unit
2a) if the unit is a least 50% in cover, the whole unit gets a cover save
2b) if less than 50% of the unit is in cover, noone gets a cover save

leohart wrote:Allocate the wound, then take the save if available.

So wounds on the 50% obscured => cover save
Wounds on the other => nothing.

Wrong.

Squadrons determine cover the same as a normal squad.
If one model out of a two model squadron is obscured, the squadron has cover.
If you have 51% of one model in a two model squadron concealed, the squadron has cover.
If you have one model out of two in a squadron popping smoke, the squadron has cover.

BRB page 64 wrote:Then he takes any cover saves available to the
squadron – use the rules for vehicles to determine if
each squadron member is in cover (ignoring other
members of the squadron, as if they were not there),
and then the rules for normal units to work out if the
entire squadron is in cover or not.

double ninjaed... but I typed the rules quote!

Edit: triple injaed, so just removed my post instead.

Damn. My Typhoon would have lasted :(. Thanks guys.

Thanks for the replies. That clarifies things much more than two dumbarses debating it. Now it makes more sense. Much appreciated.

Also, these replies--
"Also: "do vehicles in the same squadron obscure/block LOS to/from same squadron?" Clearly answered on P. 64 right column,2nd graph from the top, 2nd sentence.
"Can they block each other's weapons? " Clearly answered on P.64 left column, Shooting phase section 2nd sentence.

--could have been answered much easier with a yes or no. The questions occurred to me as I was typing the original query, and I don't have a rulebook with me at work. Thanks anyway.

Marshal Severarse wrote:--could have been answered much easier with a yes or no. The questions occurred to me as I was typing the original query, and I don't have a rulebook with me at work. Thanks anyway.

I understand the frustration, but while we are (evidently) allowed to quote rules during a discussion, using the forum as a replacement for the rule books is forbidden. It may have seemed like a snarky answer, but it's what was required.

Duly noted.

The 'clearly' part was unnecessary. The simple pg. ref. would have sufficed, but it's all good. Thanks for taking the time to ref. pgs and even paragraphs, by the way.

Marshal Severarse wrote:Duly noted.

The 'clearly' part was unnecessary. The simple pg. ref. would have sufficed, but it's all good. Thanks for taking the time to ref. pgs and even paragraphs, by the way.

The reason I said "clearly answered" is because the YMDC forum is for unclear rules discussions.

It is not a replacement for the rule book, so any rules that are clear in the rule book, I answer like that to avoid confusion between clear and ambiguous rules, and to denote that the rules to which I am referring are explicit in the passage I refer to.

I do not do it to be upsetting, or offensive, I just want to help people with the rules.

I guess its the "Teach a man to fish" concept.

DeathReaper wrote:

Marshal Severarse wrote:Duly noted.

The 'clearly' part was unnecessary. The simple pg. ref. would have sufficed, but it's all good. Thanks for taking the time to ref. pgs and even paragraphs, by the way.

The reason I said "clearly answered" is because the YMDC forum is for unclear rules discussions.

It is not a replacement for the rule book, so any rules that are clear in the rule book, I answer like that to avoid confusion between clear and ambiguous rules, and to denote that the rules to which I am referring are explicit in the passage I refer to.

I do not do it to be upsetting, or offensive, I just want to help people with the rules.

I guess its the "Teach a man to fish" concept.

You, sir, are owed an apology. I mistook your meaning. I'll send my grovel-servitor along on the next transport.

Again, thanks for the help and the extra attention to detail you provided.

Marshal Severarse wrote:You, sir, are owed an apology. I mistook your meaning. I'll send my grovel-servitor along on the next transport.

Again, thanks for the help and the extra attention to detail you provided.

While it does sometimes get heated in here, even (especially?) amongst the regulars, it's better to assume that a lack of emotion isn't being snarky or talking down - it's just the easiest and clearest way to get a point across.

Although.. DR was right first in this thread, and I agreed with him, and I can't have that, so...

I disagree it's clear! >.>

We do get snarky in here sometimes. You guys have refreshed my faith in civility a bit in here, though. Good show!