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 Tried to ask this in a previous thread but I guess it's better to open a new one for clarity's sake.

My question is: what is the cover save of a vehicle completely out of LoS ?
Normally you cannot fire at such a target, obviously, but it's always possible that a blast scatters on such a target, especially now with the new armour penetration rules for blasts.
The solution we came up with a friend of mine is to interpret extensively the rules for vehicles which are visible but have the facing you should fire at completely hidden (page 74-75 core rulebook), giving a +1 to the save
So for example we ruled that if a blast scatter on a vehicle that is completely hidden by a dense forest, the vehicle receives the 5+ save for the forest with a +1 bonus for the hidden facing, so it has a 4+ save.

Now I know that the situation described in the rulebook is slightly different, but we thought that an extensive interpretation fitted nicely...

What do you think? Such an interpretation is in the spirit of the rule? Should I expect complaints if I want to use it ina competitive play?

I think its fair to take the save from whatever is intervening cover an do the +1 you mentioned. In reality GW needs to do a FAQ, seems to be a very heated topic.

The cover save is the same whether you are 25% covered or 100% covered.

I think your main issue will be harcore tourney players, most guys will be open to a mutual agreement in the spirit of a fun game.

Oh i agree but this is YMDC we follow RAW hgere even if we don't anywhere else. For all you know my gaming group allows battlesuits to buy powerfists for 1pt.

He asked if he should expect complaints in competative play so I told him yes he probably would, he left the other thread cause he was looking for an answer to a question not a continued argument. The other thread is pretty vicious right now.

I'm prone to use this solutions mainly because otherwise very bizarre situations could show: For example, if the vehicle is oriented toward the firer, if I have a side facing slightly visible, i can claim, RAW supported a +1 to the cover save, but if the side facing is not visible I cannot... It's also true that if the side facing is visible the opponent can ask to roll to penetrate against the side armour, but we are still having a paradox here (especially since , in my specifice case, I use only Rhinos, Razorbacks, Dreddies and Land raiders, that all have the same AV in side or front).
Btw, i'm not worried about RAW players... personally I don't like the "RAW at all costs" approach, but I understand if others do, especially in tournies (except in cases of manifest easter-egg looking and RAW exploitation).

I think that my solution is elegant and simple from a RAI point of view... It looks to me that also from a RAW perspective, it's pretty acceptable, but I want to hear someone else views on this.

Careful, comments like that will get you burned at the stake around here lol.

RAW you dont get a +1 unless there is a different facing visible that you are shooting at.

Uhm uhm.... I see... It's not uncontroversial as I thought...
I see that RAW I am stretching it a little bit, but it looks the right solution to me... since it's a common situation I will discuss it with the opponent before the game I guess...

And what about the the facing you have to shot at.... If the blast scatters on a vehicle with the the nearest facing totally covered but another facing visible, do I have to roll to penetrate armour against the visible facing value?

Yup, I agree, this should be straight up cover save, obscured is caused by a unit being forced to hit a facing other than the one they are in, this shot would still be resolved against the facing they are in so cannot have obscured as well

Yep, you roll against the face you can see, same as if you'd aimed for this in the first place!

uhmmmm... this can lead to paradoxes and exploitating tactics (such as leavin purposefully the vehicle with the front visible)... FAQs are very much needed here...
I think I will keep applying my solution, with opponent's consent of course...
Thx to everybody Btw!!

err, leaving the front visible is not an exploit as that allows you to shoot directly at the vehicle rather than hope for a scatter in the right direction, which is a requirement for hitting vehicles outside LOS. You can ofc house rule whatever you like but we've come to a fair consensus on the RAW :p

Of course... Maybe it's difficult to explain what I'm talking about without a graphical representation...
Btw I agree with the general consensus about RAW... That's why, since I'm not that comfortable with it, I will discuss with my opponents before the game, if it appears that such a situation is likely to happen.