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.
The question is if i have a land raider that is cover 26% by a bastion, does it get a 3+ cover save?
I say yes and here is my reasoning, please provide your thoughts.
pg. 75 Obscured Vehicles " picture 2: More than 25% of the front of the Space Marine Rhino is
hidden by the ruin - the Rhino is obscured and will receive 4+ cover
save from the ruin."
This means that the type of terrain determines the cover provided to the vehicle.
From the cover chart on pg. 18, "Fortifications 3+"
Type of cover saves "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save"
Now the FAQ changed that to a 4+ for the guys on top but i am not talking about them.
This seems to me that a land raider would get a 3+ cover save if only 70% of it the side facing the enemy is visible to them.
I don't think so, vehicles have their own "cover" rules and are detailed in the vehicle section you must go by what that section says about cover for vehicles not page 18
The vehicle rules for cover tell you that it gains the same cover save that infantry would in the same situation. Therefore, if you and your opponent have agreed to make all fortifications 3+, then yes, a vehicle that is obscured by the terrain in question will gain a 3+ cover save.
Personally, I'd be inclined to play them as 4+ cover. The chart on p18 is a set of guidelines only, and since the RBFAQ has clarified that Battlements only give a 4+ cover save, I'd rather be consistent with the whole piece of terrain.
40k-noob wrote: I don't think so, vehicles have their own "cover" rules and are detailed in the vehicle section you must go by what that section says about cover for vehicles not page 18
...which is that it says you take the same cover save as non-vehicles would get.
Fortification would actually cover anything built to defend an area. Buildings that are built for war zones would fall under this. As for only offering a 4+ the only reason I can see for this is that they are not enclosed the way that the building is offering a total surround. Being at the top of a building could also limit the thickness of the battlement... just suggestions. Unfortunately for those of us that would like concrete rules on GW buildings... I hope they left it ambiguous intentionally so people could play it as they saw fit like most of the other rules in the game.
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
Bastions and the Fortress are not fortifications though, they are buildings. Check the terrain data sheet and let me know when you find one that says fortification.
hence the GWfaq that had to remind people that being on a battlement only granted a 4+ cover as its not a fortification that grants a 3+.
You're just hiding behind the wall that goes around the top of the building which grants the 4+
pg 96 and 97 Show that GW does in fact consider buildings fortifications, there is no terrain type "fortification". It is a broad term used to cover all structures built to defend an area including buildings and some battlefield debris.
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
40k-noob wrote: I don't think so, vehicles have their own "cover" rules and are detailed in the vehicle section you must go by what that section says about cover for vehicles not page 18
...which is that it says you take the same cover save as non-vehicles would get.
Where does it say that? I clearly see on page 74 that vehicles do not get in the same way as infantry.
40k-noob wrote: I don't think so, vehicles have their own "cover" rules and are detailed in the vehicle section you must go by what that section says about cover for vehicles not page 18
...which is that it says you take the same cover save as non-vehicles would get.
Where does it say that? I clearly see on page 74 that vehicles do not get in the same way as infantry.
Maybe I am missing something?
PG. 74
Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as Infantry
however that is followed by
The difference from
the way cover works for other models is represented by the
following exceptions to the normal rules for cover:
The exceptions are:
At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being
targeted (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by
intervening terrain or models from the point of view
of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover... (more details about LOS)
Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area
terrain. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.
and
Obviously, vehicles cannot Go to Ground, voluntarily or
otherwise. If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing
or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it,
exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a
wound (for example, a save of 5+ for a wood and so on).
Now this quote does say " it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a wound" meaning it does work the same as infantry saves.
This leaves us at trying to figure out if a bastion (not the battlement on top) provides a 3+ or 4+ cover save
I say 3+ and here is why:
PG.114 with the section titled "FORTIFICATIONS" meaning everything in the section is a fortification.
First the ADL, this has a specific terrain type of "Battlefield Debris (Defense Lines)" that is a specific rule that states the 4+ and gtg +2
Alright 4+
Sky Shield, well the top is "Unique... open terrain..." (meaning it doesn't grant cover saves... although if you have the flaps up and it does obscure the model that becomes interesting... maybe a battlement and a 4+ cover, not much of an argument to make it a 3+, however what about if you are under it and obscured by a leg?? possibly a 3+ cover...
Now the bastion (and fortress), the terrain type is "building(s)" size Medium/Small and all AV 14.
Proof a building is not a ruin:
Spoiler:
PG. 92
Buildings vs Ruins
It's important to note that these rules cover intact buildings rather
than ruins. Essentially, if your structure is fully enclosed and has
a roof, use the rules presented here. If your structure is merely a
collection of ruined walls, then use the ruins rules presented on
page 98.
In the buildings section it refers to Fortifications as buildings you can add to your army.
Here are a few references to building as fornication making a fortification a sub type of building...
Spoiler:
pg. 96
FORTIFICATIONS AND DILAPIDATION
In the Choosing Your Army Section (pg. 108) you'll see that
you can add some buildings to your army, allowing your troops
to deploy in and fight from a strong position...
pg. 97
FORTIFICATIONS, Fire Points and Armour Values
this Imperial Bastion (right) is clearly as tough as buildings (right) come... (There is a picture of the imperial bastion to the right of the paragraph.
last but not least pg 18...
Types of Cover Saves
The type of cover save a model receives depends on exactly
what he is sheltering behind. For example, a soft obstacle (like
a bloodthorn hedge) that would hide soldiers behind it, but
would not even slow down enemy shots, confers a 5+ cover
save. Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save and
most other things confer a 4+ or 5+ cover save.
A building is not a random piece of terrain like ruins and therefore is purpose built.
A bastion is a fortification with the terrain type of building.
Therefore a bastion is a purpose built fortification, that provides a 3+ cover save to those who are obscured by it.
This then gets interesting because we don't actually have a cover save for other buildings, they are not ruins and they are not fortifications.
I would say a 4+ because i think it falls into "most other things" category however there is an argument that a bunker (say from the wall of martyrs) is a "Purpose-built fortification" my gaming store doesn't use buildings outside of the bastion so i am not going to go further off topic with that.
40k-noob wrote: I don't think so, vehicles have their own "cover" rules and are detailed in the vehicle section you must go by what that section says about cover for vehicles not page 18
...which is that it says you take the same cover save as non-vehicles would get.
Where does it say that? I clearly see on page 74 that vehicles do not get in the same way as infantry.
Maybe I am missing something?
Youre mixing up GETTING the save with the VALUE of the save
40k-noob wrote: I don't think so, vehicles have their own "cover" rules and are detailed in the vehicle section you must go by what that section says about cover for vehicles not page 18
...which is that it says you take the same cover save as non-vehicles would get.
Where does it say that? I clearly see on page 74 that vehicles do not get in the same way as infantry.
Maybe I am missing something?
Youre mixing up GETTING the save with the VALUE of the save
yup I see that now.
So if the vehicle ends up being "obscured" does it drop down to a 2+ cover save?
the only way to improve a cover save (outside of stealth, shrouding, or some other special rule) is if you can see the facing of the arc you are shooting in.
English -> if the vehicle is behind a wall facing you and you can see it's side but not it's front you can shoot the side armor but it gets +1 to it's cover so if it's fully behind the bastion and you are shooting it at a 44 degree angle it would get a 2+ cover (assuming that no one has an issue with the bastion giving the 3+ cover save)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/15 18:42:40
3000pts 
: 80% done. detail painting
2/6/1
2000pts 
2000pts 
