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 don't own a Soul Grinder to check, just loooking for a straight answer please, does anyone know?

Thanks and appreciated.

Short answer: no.

Long answer: only if you model for advantage, which will make a lot of people pissed off at you.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Short answer: no.

Long answer: only if you model for advantage, which will make a lot of people pissed off at you.

Um... don't you need 25% covered in order to get that save?

I don't have a soulgrinder, but I do have defilers... and I've been able to stack 4 ADL pieces in front of the defiler that completely blocks LOS... ergo, if the shooter is on the same"level" as the Grinder behind the ADL... then the Grinder should get it's 4+.

Unless the Grinder is a much taller model?

It actually does. I measured it out, and the Aegis covers about 28% of the soul grinder from GROUND based shooting.

Flyers targeting it would not be affected.

So there seems to be some differences of opinion lol, which is what I expected I guess.
I'm not aiming to model for advantage, I'm in search of the truth lol.
My friend was using 3 of them behind an Aegis claiming a 2+ cover with MoN shrouded.
We weren't playing with models so it was hard to verify if this was actually correct.

Here's the biggest problem... http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/514528.page


Also this should be in YMDC...

I posted here because that can be a huge tactical advantage especially with Daemon of Nurgle.

The rules are rather unclear here.

It says 25% of the facing, but then doesn't define it.

I'm also thinking of sentinels here and their long, long legs.

Pg 73 says that wings are non-ornamental in this case and so would be included as part of the hull. I would say this means legs would be too.

Using the box argument, it looks like it would be a close call, despite the fact that most people would say that intuitively it is not 25% obscured.

If you can't decide between the two of you and there's no TO, use TMIR (page 4 BRB).

I'd count it as 25% obscured as it looks like that to me. Do the legs count? Of course they do, as they are not decorative.

You cover 25% of the height, not 25% of the facing

A couple tins:

You cannot stack ADL pieces on top of each other - they must o end to end

As for just stating that it is height and not facing does not make it so. Neither does the other way. Since there is disputes, it would be up to the TO or a table discussion...

Personally, I am in the 25% of the physical model, not the box method

Well saying it is not 25% of the height IS true - because the rules state 25% of the facing
The facing is the actual, physical model

 Amaraxis wrote:
You cannot stack ADL pieces on top of each other - they must o end to end

Nobody was. The reference to stacking 4 of them on top of each other was to demonstrate that one of them covers 25% of the model...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Well saying it is not 25% of the height IS true - because the rules state 25% of the facing
The facing is the actual, physical model

Citation - cause this would solve all the issues with cover.

 insaniak wrote:

 Amaraxis wrote:
You cannot stack ADL pieces on top of each other - they must o end to end

Nobody was. The reference to stacking 4 of them on top of each other was to demonstrate that one of them covers 24% of the model...

Ah - ok...lol

 Amaraxis wrote:
Citation - cause this would solve all the issues with cover.

I really don't see any reason why the rule on the top left of page 73 wouldn't apply here. LoS to a vehicle means hull, turret, and wings; the "imaginary box" is just as imaginary in rules terms, there's no precedent for it.

you need 25% covered, I think it is possible you should probably negotiate it on a case by case basis. If the firer has elevated position its pretty unlikely but if you are up on a hill I bet its pretty easy.

Amaraxis - wher eyou are told to use the facing of the model. Facing is clearly defined (the imaginary box is only to determine WHICH facing you are in, it does not determine what %age OF THE facing is covered - those are 2 separate concepts)

How can it be a facing if there is nothing there to face or draw LOS to? (the space between its legs for example), the facing is the outline of the model imo.

WHcih is my point.

The legs are a very small part of the model, and so if only the legs are covered you are NOT covering 25% of the front facign, meaning no cover

It's a difficult one but I'd say that it doesn't get a cover save from an ADL. Who would be firing at the legs anyway? You'd shoot at the massive fleshy bit....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You cover 25% of the height, not 25% of the facing

Incorrect.

The 25% of the facing is stated in the BRB, that means area. If the Grinder is less than 25% obscurred the ADL give it a 5+ cover save, 25% to 50% the ADL grants a 4+ cover save, more than 50% the ADL grants a 3+ cover save. The Grinder then enjoys his MoN shrouded.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:
If the Grinder is less than 25% obscurred the ADL give it a 5+ cover save

Citation needed.

ADL gives cover save of 4+ (or 2+ if infantry GTG behind it). Vehicles get 4+ if 25% obscured or nothing if less than 25%. You then add any bonuses.

Can't see any basis in rules for anything other - or am I missing something?

I think Cuthbert meant "If the Grinder is less than 25% obscurred [by] the ADL, [Shrouding alone will] give it a 5+ cover save." Maybe?

I've lined up my ADL and Grinders to test this out. From my POV, it looks like the Grinder gets 15-20% coverage from someone shooting directly through the ADL from the ground. The legs are partially covered, but are still 50% exposed...as is the entire torso, both arms, etc. Unfortunately, reasonable people are going to disagree on this. Since a 2+ cover save is not a trivial matter, a TO or dice-off may have to make the final determination, and someone will very likely get hosed. My solution is to play with Tzeentch Grinders instead.

 whigwam wrote:
I think Cuthbert meant "If the Grinder is less than 25% obscurred [by] the ADL, [Shrouding alone will] give it a 5+ cover save." Maybe?

I've lined up my ADL and Grinders to test this out. From my POV, it looks like the Grinder gets 15-20% coverage from someone shooting directly through the ADL from the ground. The legs are partially covered, but are still 50% exposed...as is the entire torso, both arms, etc. Unfortunately, reasonable people are going to disagree on this. Since a 2+ cover save is not a trivial matter, a TO or dice-off may have to make the final determination, and someone will very likely get hosed. My solution is to play with Tzeentch Grinders instead.

But he then goes on to say that 25%-50% gives 4+ which isn't true, since it would be 2+ with a 4+ defence line.

I agree Tzeentch soulgrinders are more mobile and can do more stuff than a Nurgle one can.

Good point, I probably should've read his full post rather than just the shortened quote.

Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You cover 25% of the height, not 25% of the facing

Incorrect.

Actually correct. I was not stating the criteria for gaining a cover save, but that the ADL only covers 25% of the HEIGHT of the model. The area is what is important, which I had already put. Reading all posts would be key here.

Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote: If the Grinder is less than 25% obscurred the ADL give it a 5+ cover save,

Incorrect. Unless a model is 25% obscured by a piece of terrain it does not gain ANY cover save from that piece of terrain. If you disagree you must, as per the tenets of the forum, prove it.

Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote: 25% to 50% the ADL grants a 4+ cover save

Which is already covered.....

Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:, more than 50% the ADL grants a 3+ cover save. The Grinder then enjoys his MoN shrouded.

Wrong. Yet again that rule is 100% made up. There is no way to arrive at that answer, at all.

An ADL provides a 4+ cover save if the facing is 25% obscured. No other save can be gained by a vehicle (as it cannot go to ground)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
An ADL provides a 4+ cover save if the facing is 25% obscured. No other save can be gained by a vehicle, (as it cannot go to ground), Unless it has Stealth or Shrouded.

FTFY With the bold and Underscore.

The question is: Does Height = Facing or are they two different and defined metrics? And where does the rulebook define 'facing' as the silouette of the model VS covering a square box of the side of the model?

Many people claim that 25% height is the same as 25% facing and the rules don't make a clear distinction. (or if it is clear, people argue about it)

Personally, I wouldn't attempt to gain cover for a Soulgrinder if I played chaos, but since I don't play chaos, HIWPI means I am always going to be arguing from the side of the shooter which makes it a argument between two players both wanting personal advantage.

Facing is only defined as front, side and rear. You must shoot at the facing mostly pointed towards you and only that facing counts for determining cover except for when LOS to the primary facing is entirely blocked. This means that angling you vehicle slightly away from an enemy unit will reduce it's front facing profile and make cover slightly easier to find in many cases.

As for what this has to do with the question at hand you'd have to determine which surface areas count as the primary facing and determine further how much of that facing is obscured by the ADL. With a walker it will be difficult but the depiction on page 73 of the BRB would be where I'd start.