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.

So the formation looks like this:

................O
............O
........O
....O
O.....X
O........X
....O.......X
........ O......X
............O....X
............... X
...........X
........X

<source of shooting attack>
**********************
the main rule mentioned that a unit got itself 25% covered get benefit from cover save.
If these two units were shoot from the source, plasma cannon for example, and both covered by template and wounded,
can a player roll cover saves for them?

Sorry if this sounds stupid.

*edited formation with dots

cover is on a model by model basis, so only those models that are 25% covered from the shooters p.o.v. would actually get a cover save.

This exploit technically worked in 4th (though was often houseruled out, and in 5th (and again was houseruled out until it was FAQ'd out).

But as 40k Noob pointed out, it doesn't work the same in 6th, as all cover saves are model by model now. Technically, yes, you can make this work, but some models will always wind up open.

Thank you, 40k-noob and Mannahnin!
I think this might leads to argument, so I'd better not play like this :-/

hallodx wrote:
Thank you, 40k-noob and Mannahnin!
I think this might leads to argument, so I'd better not play like this :-/

I would take the opposite approach. First of all this is clearly legal and could help open some people's eyes to one of the more notable differences between 6th and 5th that so many choose not to learn/embrace. It also has a very effective counter tactic (focus fire) that was designed to help the shooter deal with issues like this. I think its always a bad idea to avoid a straight forward and clever use of the rules (not an exploit, something cheesy, or a twist of creative grammar) because a cretin across the board may not appreciate the nuance of what is happening. Certainly if you are playing Orks, Tau, IG or DE or any unit that desperately needs the cover while advancing, using this tactic is good use of proper game mechanics, not something shifty to put aside.

pg 18 says

"intervening models:
if a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit, or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save.
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."
end quote pg 18

there is no 25% rule for shooting through intervening models

catch is now in 6th we can focus fire on the half not in cover, and if you are not shooting through the intervening models, there is no cover granted.

 Lobukia wrote:

hallodx wrote:
Thank you, 40k-noob and Mannahnin!
I think this might leads to argument, so I'd better not play like this :-/

I would take the opposite approach. First of all this is clearly legal and could help open some people's eyes to one of the more notable differences between 6th and 5th that so many choose not to learn/embrace. It also has a very effective counter tactic (focus fire) that was designed to help the shooter deal with issues like this. I think its always a bad idea to avoid a straight forward and clever use of the rules (not an exploit, something cheesy, or a twist of creative grammar) because a cretin across the board may not appreciate the nuance of what is happening. Certainly if you are playing Orks, Tau, IG or DE or any unit that desperately needs the cover while advancing, using this tactic is good use of proper game mechanics, not something shifty to put aside.

Its also a good way to annoy your opponent to the point that he will pitch stuff at you. A game is usually not thw time to "open [someone's] eyes" to a questionable rule.

"clever" usually translates to cheesy/beardy/abusive.

Hi, Lobukia, easysauce and SoloFalcon1138!

Lobukia:
I think you are right... This may sound a little bit ridiculous but that's how the rule let us play this game. Thank you.

easysauce :
Oh I didn't notice that! Thanks for letting me know!

SoloFalcon1138:
That's what I was worry about!

In the given example, there is no need to focus fire on the closer unit as the closest models are in the open anyway.