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'm having trouble figuring out how to screen my nids with Gaunts and could use some input:

The rule is something like any models from a third unit (not the shooting unit or the unit being shot) provide a 5+ cover save to the targeted unit. I remember this being explained as something along the lines of "the closer unit provides a more immediate threat and so is distracting to the firers," and in the case that the intervening unit is friendly it's simply a matter of avoiding friendly fire.

Do the intervening models need to actually obscure the firers' view to the target, or do they simply need to be in front of the target for this to happen?

In other words, if a unit can see over the intervening unit, do I still get cover from the units being in the way?

No, because they are not in the way.

A model has to be 25% obscured from the POV of the firing unit to get a cover save.

 UncommonConfection wrote:
I'm having trouble figuring out how to screen my nids with Gaunts and could use some input:

The rule is something like any models from a third unit (not the shooting unit or the unit being shot) provide a 5+ cover save to the targeted unit. I remember this being explained as something along the lines of "the closer unit provides a more immediate threat and so is distracting to the firers," and in the case that the intervening unit is friendly it's simply a matter of avoiding friendly fire.

Do the intervening models need to actually obscure the firers' view to the target, or do they simply need to be in front of the target for this to happen?

In other words, if a unit can see over the intervening unit, do I still get cover from the units being in the way?

If you draw a line from one firing unit to target unit and that line intersects "any" other unit, the target receives a 5+ save. It does not have to go through a model, just the unit.

For instance (Please ignore the underscores for this) F=Firing O=Obscuring T=Target

___F

O___O

__T

In this example, even though the firer has a straight shot to the target, it bisects a unit on the way, even though it doesn't go through a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, because they are not in the way.

A model has to be 25% obscured from the POV of the firing unit to get a cover save.

Nos - Pg. 18 "Intervening Models"
If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by
models from a third unit (rnodels not from the firer's unit,
or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save in the
same way as if it was behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires
through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the
target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer.
Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather
than through it."

 Kevin949 wrote:

F=Firing O=Obscuring T=Target

___F

O___O

__T

In this example, even though the firer has a straight shot to the target, it bisects a unit on the way, even though it doesn't go through a model.

Ok, this makes sense. So as long as the shooting goes in between or through the models in the unit, but not around or over it, the cover save is applied, am I right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather
than through it."

Wow. I completely missed this sentence. Got it now, thanks guys

Unfortunately, "seeing over" isn't very specific. If you're seeing completely over, as in from TLoS the top of the intervening unit appears below the feet of the target unit, there's certainly no cover save. If at least 25% of the target model is viewed between models in the intervening unit, then it will certainly get a cover save.

By my reading, if less than 25% of the target model is viewed between models in the intervening unit (e.g., the target model's toes appear between the helmets of the intervening unit from the firers perspective), then no cover save is conferred. I base that on the "...in the same way as if it was behind terrain. Similarly..." portion of the rule; the models and spaces between them are treated like terrain for determining if you get cover, as opposed to simply granting it outright.

I've seen others argue that if any portion of the target model is viewed between models in another unit, that's sufficient.

Pyrian wrote:
Unfortunately, "seeing over" isn't very specific. If you're seeing completely over, as in from TLoS the top of the intervening unit appears below the feet of the target unit, there's certainly no cover save. If at least 25% of the target model is viewed between models in the intervening unit, then it will certainly get a cover save.

By my reading, if less than 25% of the target model is viewed between models in the intervening unit (e.g., the target model's toes appear between the helmets of the intervening unit from the firers perspective), then no cover save is conferred. I base that on the "...in the same way as if it was behind terrain. Similarly..." portion of the rule; the models and spaces between them are treated like terrain for determining if you get cover, as opposed to simply granting it outright.

I've seen others argue that if any portion of the target model is viewed between models in another unit, that's sufficient.

Well, the issue is with this line "Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it's completely visible to the firer"...it doesn't say they have to be 25% obscured (quite the opposite), it simply says "If you're doing X, apply Y condition".

In other words, if you can draw a line from the eyes of your firing model to any point on the target model and that line goes through a unit, the target gets a cover save.

The most difficult thing will be probably be judging longer distances and wider gaps (such as the full 2" between 40mm bases from 48" away with the firer having a height advantage). But situations like that probably don't come up too often.

Based on the word "Similarly" which is in the context of "in the same way as if it was behind terrain", I view it as stating that the next section should also be taken to be "in the same way as if it was behind terrain".

Pyrian wrote:
Based on the word "Similarly" which is in the context of "in the same way as if it was behind terrain", I view it as stating that the next section should also be taken to be "in the same way as if it was behind terrain".

I'm pretty sure they're just referencing that it grants a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. You're only taking half of the sentence fragment after the comma and applying it to the next statement, not the whole sentence fragment like you're supposed to. It's not that it's following the "Behind terrain" rules, it's following the "receives 5+ cover save" rule.

And again, it does state they get the save "even if the model is completely visible to the firer."

 Kevin949 wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Based on the word "Similarly" which is in the context of "in the same way as if it was behind terrain", I view it as stating that the next section should also be taken to be "in the same way as if it was behind terrain".

I'm pretty sure they're just referencing that it grants a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. You're only taking half of the sentence fragment after the comma and applying it to the next statement, not the whole sentence fragment like you're supposed to. It's not that it's following the "Behind terrain" rules, it's following the "receives 5+ cover save" rule.

And again, it does state they get the save "even if the model is completely visible to the firer."

"Similarly" here does seem to be linking being obscured by a model and being between the gaps in a model together as both giving cover saves.

It would be difficult to prove whether or not something is 25% obscured by the gaps between the models in a unit, so it seems that if even a small part of the unit is between the gaps, they should get a cover save.

 Kevin949 wrote:
I'm pretty sure they're just referencing that it grants a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain.

To me, that's entirely self-defeating; if it acts like terrain, you need 25% obscurement. And I think that's exactly what they're referencing, because there are no other meaningful differences; if it doesn't mean the 25%, then it's not like being behind terrain at all, it's like jink or smoke launchers or something.

 Kevin949 wrote:
You're only taking half of the sentence fragment after the comma and applying it to the next statement, not the whole sentence fragment like you're supposed to. It's not that it's following the "Behind terrain" rules, it's following the "receives 5+ cover save" rule.

It's both. I'm using both, you're effectively using just one. The 5+ clause is necessary to inform you as to what the save is, in either interpretation. In your interpretation, the "terrain" portion is effectively ignored, it doesn't mean anything. So, by my reading, you're the one whose interpretation ignores half the sentence.

 Kevin949 wrote:
And again, it does state they get the save "even if the model is completely visible to the firer."

That's a given when the model is being fired at between other models, in either interpretation. So, it doesn't help distinguish between them.

Here's the thing: nowhere in these rules is there anything stating that any little itty bit of the model counts as enough obscurement to invoke the rule. In my view, you're assuming that, and you're assuming that entirely because the reference to the normal terrain rules isn't specific enough to be entirely clear. But it doesn't appear to mean anything else, and IMO you can't just throw that reference out and pretend it doesn't apply. Since the rule is clearly stated to work like the rules for being behind terrain, then the rules for being behind terrain must apply, and you must be at least 25% obscured by the imaginary line of coherency to get the cover save.

I'd not thought about this carefully before, and the use of the phrase "partially hidden" always had me thinking that the target got the save if any portion was obscured. but I think I'm coming round to Pyrian's way of thinking. "...it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain." This does strongly imply that we should treat the intervening unit as terrain (a sort of blobby terrain with an indistinct boundary), and if we get the cover save "in the same way" as regular terrain, then 25% coverage is required.

Because the boundary of the "terrain blob" is not well-defined, it might need a roll-off to determine if the save applies.

My 2 cents...

Pyrian wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
I'm pretty sure they're just referencing that it grants a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain.

To me, that's entirely self-defeating; if it acts like terrain, you need 25% obscurement. And I think that's exactly what they're referencing, because there are no other meaningful differences; if it doesn't mean the 25%, then it's not like being behind terrain at all, it's like jink or smoke launchers or something.

 Kevin949 wrote:
You're only taking half of the sentence fragment after the comma and applying it to the next statement, not the whole sentence fragment like you're supposed to. It's not that it's following the "Behind terrain" rules, it's following the "receives 5+ cover save" rule.

It's both. I'm using both, you're effectively using just one. The 5+ clause is necessary to inform you as to what the save is, in either interpretation. In your interpretation, the "terrain" portion is effectively ignored, it doesn't mean anything. So, by my reading, you're the one whose interpretation ignores half the sentence.

 Kevin949 wrote:
And again, it does state they get the save "even if the model is completely visible to the firer."

That's a given when the model is being fired at between other models, in either interpretation. So, it doesn't help distinguish between them.

Here's the thing: nowhere in these rules is there anything stating that any little itty bit of the model counts as enough obscurement to invoke the rule. In my view, you're assuming that, and you're assuming that entirely because the reference to the normal terrain rules isn't specific enough to be entirely clear. But it doesn't appear to mean anything else, and IMO you can't just throw that reference out and pretend it doesn't apply. Since the rule is clearly stated to work like the rules for being behind terrain, then the rules for being behind terrain must apply, and you must be at least 25% obscured by the imaginary line of coherency to get the cover save.

You're adding in a 25% clause that is not there. Plain and simple.

No, you're misinterpreting the sentence. It does not reference anything about 25% cover it simply references that you would get the 5+ cover save "as if you were obscured by terrain". It does not say or imply that you follow the obscurement rules for terrain.

Here's the thing: You're reading it wrong. "If the model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit" that is the only qualifier you need to meet to apply the result of "the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer." It does not have to say "if even a tiny bit" or anything of the sort because you have the all inclusive statement of "if the model fires through". I assume nothing, I read and disseminate the rule. The statement about models being obscured by other models is to cover the basis of single model model units such as MC's and IC's blocking LOS to other units. Or perhaps 1 guy from a squad is blocking another model. You wouldn't be firing through a unit at that point, you're firing past a model, the 25% rule comes into play in those situations.

I'm not ignoring the reference to being obscured by terrain, I'm examining the wording that says they receive a cover save in the same way as being obscured by terrain, it doesn't it is the same rule. The very first sentence that says "if a model is partially hidden from the firer by models from a third unit" when they could have just as easily said "If a model is at least 25% hidden..."
But they didn't, they said partially. The terrain bit has zero to do with the actual rule because if you look at the chart above the paragraph there, there's no mention of intervening models or anything like that. The reference in the rule is to say that they get the 5+ cover save as if they were behind terrain, not to follow the terrain rules.

So, breakdown:

Partially = There's your amount obscured clause.
5+ cover = There's your result clause.
Firing through the gaps = Here is your secondary qualifier to meet the result clause.

I didn't think I'd strike such a nerve with this haha.

 Kevin949 wrote:

The very first sentence that says "if a model is partially hidden from the firer by models from a third unit" when they could have just as easily said "If a model is at least 25% hidden..."

I agree with this part. The English isn't very precise in this rule, but I tend to think that if GW wanted to specify something they would. And again, there is the phrase "partially obscured" which would have been the perfect place for them to say "25% obscured" if they intended to.

However, I see this being a very hard case to prove. Seems like the perfect situation for a house rule to be implemented.