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.

Hey guys my friend and I were playing a game the other day when a rules dispute came up. I had a soul grinder in a forest, and when he shot his melta guns at me he said that I did not receive a cover save. Forests state they can be either area terrain or not and whether or not they are area terrain any model in a forest gains a 5+ cover save. Also any model that must trace their shot through a forest gives the model they are shooting a 5+ cover save. Finally with forests the trees can be move around to accommodate moving units.
Ok now that we established the rules lets discus the arguments. He claimed that forests, being area terrain, did not give me cover unless I was 25% obscured. My counter argument was that it is not the fact they are area terrain that I get the cover save from, it is the forest special rule that I get the save from. My other point was that using the 25% obscured made no sense considering the trees can be moved changing what would be 25% obscured throughout the game by moving units in a forest.
To me it’s a muddy rule, but it seems that GW made a special exception to how cover normally works with forests since units moving within them can change the land scape. So do vehicles get cover for shooting through a forest regardless of being obscured, do they only get obscured by the ever changing area that’s 25% obscured, or do they not get cover at all from forests?

A soul grinder is a vehicle. For a vehicle to get a cover save it must be 25% obscured.

You missed the actual rule that deals with this situation: start with page 74 in the section titled "Vehicles and Cover". Namely the first sentence, "Vehicles do not benefit from cover in the same way as infantry." Then read the bullet points in that section.

Regarding moving stuff out of the way, moving trees is a temporary thing that simply allows us to place models where they should be. Note that the rules on page 91 go on to say to put them back as close as to their original position as possible after you've finished moving because it affects the line of sight of models shooting through it... Meaning, after you've placed your soul grinder in that tree stand, try to put the trees back. At this point, is *the facing* of the soul grinder being shot 25% or more obscured? If yes, you get a cover save. If no, then sorry.

Also vehicles do not get cover simply from standing in area terain, I don't see how this prevents them then from getting the cover for tracing line of sight through trees.

Forests, being area terrain, would provide the cover save to your soul grinder as far as I know. Forests only represent an area filled with trees, a forest can just be an area marked out, and agreed to, with no actual trees in it. I may be mistaken though.

The problem there is, which part of the hull were they tracing line of sight to? And did they have to draw line of sight through the wood to see that part?

If the vehicle was not 25% obscured, then surely there was enough un-obscured part of the hull to trace LoS to without going through the wood?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Forests, being area terrain, would provide the cover save to your soul grinder as far as I know. Forests only represent an area filled with trees, a forest can just be an area marked out, and agreed to, with no actual trees in it. I may be mistaken though.

In that case the Soul Grinder would never get a cover save from it, as it's a vehicle.

The vehicles was 100% in the forest, but where the trees were placed did not give it 25% obscurment.
He had to trace los through the forest any way he shot at the grinder.

Naugatan wrote:
The vehicles was 100% in the forest, but where the trees were placed did not give it 25% obscurment.
He had to trace los through the forest any way he shot at the grinder.

Just because LOS went through the forest doesn't matter. If the soul grinder (vehicle) wasn't 25% obscured after putting the trees back as close as possible to their original position then no save.

clively wrote:

Naugatan wrote:
The vehicles was 100% in the forest, but where the trees were placed did not give it 25% obscurment.
He had to trace los through the forest any way he shot at the grinder.

Just because LOS went through the forest doesn't matter. If the soul grinder (vehicle) wasn't 25% obscured after putting the trees back as close as possible to their original position then no save.

It does matter. The forest gives a 5+ to any unit that los goes through trees. Vehicles only say that you do not get cover simply for standing in area terain, I am not claiming cover for standing in area terain but for tracing los through a forest. Also nowhere does it say that you put the trees back in their original positions when moving them in the forest.

clively wrote:

Naugatan wrote:
The vehicles was 100% in the forest, but where the trees were placed did not give it 25% obscurment.
He had to trace los through the forest any way he shot at the grinder.

Just because LOS went through the forest doesn't matter. If the soul grinder (vehicle) wasn't 25% obscured after putting the trees back as close as possible to their original position then no save.

I'm not so sure, 25% obscurement isn't the only way a vehicle can get a cover save (KFF for example, night fighting etc).
The rules for the specific terrain peaces must come into effect. If it was a ruin, for example, then there would be no save, but the forest has extra rules concerning when i gives a cover save (p102).

"if one or more models in a shooting unit have to trace their line of sight through a forest (because they're shooting at a model beyond the forest) then the model being shot benefits from a 5 + cover save"
Seems pretty cut and dry, the unit was shooting through a forest, no distinction is made between vehicles and non-vehicles, the Soul Grinder gets a cover save,.

Arent ALL soulgrinders Daemon of...., which grants the Daemon rule for a 5+ invulnerable save?

Yes, but a nurgle one would have Shrouded.

True.

As above, the vehicle would NOT get a cover save if it were IN the forest - the (because) defines that you have to go completely through the forest and out the other side.

References:Note that the basic rules for Warhammer 40,000 are written under the assumption that the model in question is an Infantry model. They then add additional rules and exceptions for other types of units such as Beasts, Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures, and so on. Some of those even have additional sub-types with even more additional rules, such as Vehicles having Tanks, Walkers, Skimmers, Flyers and so on.

So you have a Soul Grinder in a Forest. The Soul Grinder is a Vehicle and a Walker. That means, due to the rules I've listed above, the only way he's getting a 5+ Cover Save is by the following:

1. The models firing the weapons at the Soul Grinder can not see 25% of the closest facing.
2. Their is an entire Forest between the Soul Grinder and the firing models; if the Soul Grinder is in the Forest boundaries then the normal 25% obscured requirement takes precedent.

Really, to me it sounds like you misunderstand how item 2 works. The 5+ from tracing LOS through a Forest/Jungle/Wood only applies if the target is on the other side of the Forest boundaries from the position of the firers. If either the target or the attack are actually in the Forest/Jungle/Wood then it doesn't apply. The normal cover rules (such as most Forests/Jungles/Woods being Area Terrain or vehicles needing to be 25% obscured) take precedent in those cases.

Your friend was right, you didn't/don't get a Cover Save.

 cowmonaut wrote:

Really, to me it sounds like you misunderstand how item 2 works. The 5+ from tracing LOS through a Forest/Jungle/Wood only applies if the target is on the other side of the Forest boundaries from the position of the firers. If either the target or the attack are actually in the Forest/Jungle/Wood then it doesn't apply. The normal cover rules (such as most Forests/Jungles/Woods being Area Terrain or vehicles needing to be 25% obscured) take precedent in those cases.

Your friend was right, you didn't/don't get a Cover Save.

You are probably right, I just assumed that tracing through any part of the forest gave the 5+ cover and that the parenthasis was giving an exaple of one way to get the cover save, not the only way to get the cover save. This does nothing to fix the moving trees issue which is why I figured they meant for shooting into trees at all to give the save. As it is I can move one mof my units where the tree was forcing the tree to move and stripping a model of its cover save, doesnt make sense but that might be how it works.

The vehicle should get the 5+ save. the 25% rule is for area terrain.

Forests are usually (not always) area terrain. Without seeing the forest in question we don't know which way it was agreed to be played, nor if it had a base or not.

Just being in the boundary of a forest grants the save. being in the boundary does not mean it is area terrain. the boundary is the boarder you can trace around the trees.

Like always terrain needs to be discussed.

sirlynchmob wrote:
the 25% rule is for area terrain.

No, it's for all terain.

I've always played that "through" was synonymous with "into".

If a Rhino was nosed into woods, and shots from the front or sides would get a cover save... But if the back was sticking out and was shot at it does not get a cover save for being in the woods, Only if the shots had to travel through woods before reaching the model.

That very well may not be RaW though... But it is a bit ambiguous at best since the rule does not say the shot has to travel completely through the whole terrain piece. The paragraph on shooting through forests does say "shooting units beyond the forest..." but then it goes on to include models in the forest due to tree's being rearranged.

(because...) states what they mean by "through", in this context.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the 25% rule is for area terrain.

No, it's for all terain.

not quite, in general 25%, and also while in area terrain it takes precidence.

forest that are not area terrain specifically, would grant the 5+.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
(because...) states what they mean by "through", in this context.

Being in parenthesis means its an added comment, not needed for the proceeding statement to be true. Like an example.

And if that was true, the part about it applying to models in the forest, even if trees were rearranged, would not be needed because if shooting at models in a forest does not count as "through a forest" that whole sentence would be moot. But since they say " This applies even if during the game you rearranged a forest's trees around a unit" then they obviously ARE including models that are within the forest and not just completely through it.

This has always been a curiosity to me, when it has come up on these forums before, because the rule is poorly written that led to a interesting conclusions. In that situation it wasn't in relation to a vehicle, which does add a nice twist as it does raise the question of which rule takes president. To be honest, I am not entirely sure which one I would give more weight as the arguments for both sides are very potent.

I do have to point out that people came to the opposite conclusion last time a question about shooting through forests was brought up. That conclusion was that passing over any part of the terrain was more then enough, including shooting out or into forests themselves. The arguments for that where along the same lines as the 'move through cover' argument used in the moving through walls debate.

It is simple: The word through has also been used to define special abilities and other rules which clearly do not need you to completely move 'through' something. The 'duel use of terminology' is a problem within Game Workshop rules and it always ensured that any rule based on the terminology is immediately suspect. We can not simply state which interpretation was being used when the rule itself was penned. Honestly, and a little sadly if you ask me, there is not enough evidence that 'through' always means in one side and out the other.

For forests, and ruin walls, using through to mean 'all the way through' would at least bring the rules back in line with common sense....

I don't think the word "through" plays a meaningful part with regards to determining whether a vehicle gets a save from the forest.

For everything but a vehicle pg 102 is pretty clear that you get a cover save if you are within the boundaries (bolded part). It also says you get a save if LOS is traced through a forest. So both situations of being inside or behind the forest are covered.

For vehicles, (pg 74 & 75): They iterate across 2 bullet points that an additional restriction is that the vehicle be 25% obscured. Pg 75 zeros in on being inside area terrain - which doesn't apply when the vehicle is behind the forest.

However pg 74 says that it must be at least 25% obscured from intervening terrain with no restriction on type. Yes, the forest rules say you get a 5+ cover; but the vehicle rules say that "intervening terrain" must still block 25% of the model. I don't know how else to define "intervening" except to say that it is any terrain between the shooter and target... which include forests.

"because they're shooting at a model beyond the forest"
This is pretty important, I misunderstood the OP's post and thought the Soul Grinder was behind the forest. If it's in the forest it won't be receiving cover without 25% obscurement.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"because they're shooting at a model beyond the forest"
This is pretty important, I misunderstood the OP's post and thought the Soul Grinder was behind the forest. If it's in the forest it won't be receiving cover without 25% obscurement.

Now read the last sentence and tell me they are not referring to models in the forest as well.

They aren't, they're simply stating that even if you had to rearrange the trees on said forest the boundary would remain the same.

Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area
terrain. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

This comes strait from the rule book so forests do not give cover to a vehicle for being inside of them. But isn't a soul grinder a daemon? So it would get a 5+ invulnerable anyway?

 smeg wrote:
Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area
terrain. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.

This comes strait from the rule book so forests do not give cover to a vehicle for being inside of them. But isn't a soul grinder a daemon? So it would get a 5+ invulnerable anyway?

But it's not necessarily area terrain.
You don't need to be obscured by 25% to use stealth & shroud in the open, they just grant a cover save in the open.
same with the forest, don't need to be obscured, it just grants a cover save while in the boundary.

Models within a forest's boundary benefit from a 5+ cover save.

No mention of infantry..... just models.

if one or more models in a shooting unit have to trace their line of sight through a forest (because they're shooting at a model beyond the forest) then the model being shot benefits from a 5 + cover save

Followed by:

This applies even if during the game you rearranged a forest's trees around a unit - you just need to remember where the boundaries of the forest are.

Soooooo:
This even applies....

What still applies?
If one or more models has to trace LoS through a forest.

Why does it need clarified?
Because you may have moved the trees around a model within its boundaries.

sirlynchmob wrote:
But it's not necessarily area terrain.

Unless the parties involved agreed beforehand to treat it as not area terrain - something that I do not expect happens very often - then the forest is area terrain.