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.

Venomthropes are awesome, there is no doubt about that. The thing is that cover rules can be quite shaky in the sixth edition. I recently had a rather heated argument about gaunts and cover and my opponent was adamant that gribblies can't cover something as large as a Carnifex. So I sat down with another friend to take some measurements and it turned out that hormagaunts indeed can provide the needed obstruction. It is still quite shaky and I've heard arguments go both ways. So, is there consensus on this, or do I have to ask every opponent how he feels about that particular matter?

Thanks in advance!

Are the Gaunts in the path of fire between the shooter and the target? If so, read "intervening models" on page 18 (specifically the 2nd sentence).

Exactly. But my opponent quoted the 25% rule. Probably the shaky thing is the shots going over the intervening unit. As a relatively new player I am still trying to wrap my head around this particular concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oh! I think I got it. Does the 'intervening models' rule take precedence over the 25% rule in that case?

If the unit in the way obscures the target model, the target model receives a 5+ cover save

Cant you just check if carnifex is 4 times higher as gaunts? If not you got your 25% obscured. If he still want to argue call him cheater

If you were to stack up 4 gants one on top of each other, would they cover the model's height?

Is it possible to cover the model's length with 4 models?

if you answered yes to both questions, you get an obscured save.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
If you were to stack up 4 gants one on top of each other, would they cover the model's height?

Is it possible to cover the model's length with 4 models?

if you answered yes to both questions, you get an obscured save.

what about the empty spaces between the models?

For example, the total height of a gaunt may cover 25% of a carnifex, but if you take into account the empty spaces between models caused by them not being 25mm cubes then they may not end up covering 25% of the model, surface-area wise.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
If you were to stack up 4 gants one on top of each other, would they cover the model's height?

Is it possible to cover the model's length with 4 models?

if you answered yes to both questions, you get an obscured save.

what about the empty spaces between the models?

For example, the total height of a gaunt may cover 25% of a carnifex, but if you take into account the empty spaces between models caused by them not being 25mm cubes then they may not end up covering 25% of the model, surface-area wise.

We could do a complete analysis every time we play. As far as I am concerned if your model is small enough that 16 models in a vertical square would cover about 80% of the model, I'll give you a cover save, regardless of gaps.

We only have to do it once, and then you can cite it for future reference. Here is an example of how it is done (especially relevant to my interests)

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/469529.page

Although you'd have to determine it on a case-by-case basis for models that do not have the average height of an infantry model, i.e. sentinels, Tyranid warriors, etc.

Im quite sure they wont cover enough carnifex, but i can conduct a experiment tonight if i have time.

Tracing fire through an intervening unit hasnothing to do with the 25% rule. If the line of sight to the target passes through a unit you get a 5+.

The only tricky bit is working out if you are firing over the intervening unit not through it.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Tracing fire through an intervening unit hasnothing to do with the 25% rule. If the line of sight to the target passes through a unit you get a 5+.

The only tricky bit is working out if you are firing over the intervening unit not through it.

Got it! That was the part that didn't add up.

You need to measure line of sight from every firing model, to determine if their individual attacks are obscured by the intervening unit. I suggest the use of a digital camera, it makes 25% coverage processing easier and provides photographic evidence in case the referee is called over.

Make sure you measure Line of Sight from the models eyes!

You don't need 25% the mini can be totally clear, if the line of fire goes through a unit you get cover

Uptopdownunder wrote:
You don't need 25% the mini can be totally clear, if the line of fire goes through a unit you get cover

Correct, the rule states that the shots must be going completely over the intervening unit to not grant a cover save.

And about the only way to be firing completely over is if the target is elevated or the shooter is. On flat terrain, it's essentially impossible unless the shooter is a MC or vehicle with an elevated gun.

There are plenty of very long threads about this issue.

"If a target is partially hidden from the fixer's view by models from athird unit (models 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."

Some people assert that if the target is evern 1% obscured, then it gets a cover save.

Others look at the part where it says " in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

The "Way" you get a cover save from being behind terrain only if you are 25% obscured. So if Intervening models provide a cover save "in the same way", that would include the 25% requirement. There is no caveats about the "same way" only including certain parts....



The next part of the paragraph adds the rule that the space between the models also counts towards being obscured.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Correct, the rule states that the shots must be going completely over the intervening unit to not grant a cover save.

When you surreptitiously add a word like "completely"; you drastically change what the rule actually says....

 TychoTerziev wrote:

Venomthropes are awesome, there is no doubt about that. The thing is that cover rules can be quite shaky in the sixth edition. I recently had a rather heated argument about gaunts and cover and my opponent was adamant that gribblies can't cover something as large as a Carnifex. So I sat down with another friend to take some measurements and it turned out that hormagaunts indeed can provide the needed obstruction. It is still quite shaky and I've heard arguments go both ways. So, is there consensus on this, or do I have to ask every opponent how he feels about that particular matter?

Thanks in advance!

Well how long is a piece of string?

You can not really answer this just as you can not really answer Do gaunts give cover to a Carnifex?

This is because 40K uses True Line of Sight.

Anything that blocks LoS to a model counts for the 25% coverage.

You will need to actually get a firing models eye view (Or from the weapon mount along the barrel in the case of vehicles firing) to see if the model in question is actually covered 25% or more.

This is not something we can determine for you. It is something you have to look at through True LoS.

So your answer is maybe depending on the position of the models in question.

Should not have made those true scale carnifexes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
We only have to do it once, and then you can cite it for future reference.

That's not how LOS in 40K works. In every case, the cover save is going to depend on the relative positions of the specific models involved at that point in the game. It is impossible to definitively say that 'model x' will always give cover to 'model y'.

DeathReaper,this is all fine and dandy,but I still find the rules about general cover and intervening unit contradicting each other. Maybe I haven't formulated my question properly. I will try again: Do you need those sacred 25% when LOS is drawn through an intervening unit?

TychoTerziev:

pg18: Intervening Models

"If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit, it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

and

"Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in the intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer.

So, if you get down to the level of the models eyes and ANY part of the target unit is hidden OR it's visible but you are shooting between models of an intervening unit, then yes you get the cover save. The ONLY exception is that none of the models in the firing unit count.

There's no contradiction here. It's saying that they get cover, just like a model behind terrain gets cover. Given the part about the target being 100% in the clear and STILL getting the save makes it clear that they are not evoking the 25% rule.

And, yes, this leads to fun things like a Titan getting a cover save because a unit of marines happens to obscure part of it's foot even though 99% of the Titan is visible.

clively: You are ignoring the part of the rule that says "... in the same way as if it was behind terrain." (emphasis mine)

If terrain uses the 25%, and you don't use it for intervening terrain... that is a *different* way...

So you're saying it must be 25% obscured even though the rule then goes on to tell you that it can be 100% visible and still be granted a cover save?

The rule tells you that normal models can be 100 percent visible and still get a cover save.

Certain units have specific special rules that govern whether they can receive a cover save while still visible...

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So you're saying it must be 25% obscured even though the rule then goes on to tell you that it can be 100% visible and still be granted a cover save?

It says the space between the models will also provide cover. So if the space between the models 'covers' 25% of the model, then that model will get a cover save, even if it is 100% visible.

I think of it as a fence, the models are the fence posts, but the space in between also provides cover.

That is one reasonable interpretation of the rule.

We ran into this issue in a game just now. IG tanks were firing at Fexes over the heads of Gaunts. Because the Turret is elevated, and the Gaunts were faster than the fexes because they were running while the fexes were shooting, at some point they lost the intervening mode save, even though the Gaunts were still between the Tank and the Fexes.

I would rather that cover be less complicated, and that intervening modes (25% LOS blocking or not) grant a 5+ cover, but that doesn't seem to be the rules, and leads to many arguments of when the threshold is crossed.

I spend 4-5 times as much time arguing about Cover Saves and LOS in every game I play as every other rule combined. I feel like my local group should develop a house rule to simplify this, and remove the part of it that is left up to interpretation.

Yes, I find the ''same way as if it was behind terrain'' part problematic and it has been quoted to me in defense of the interpretation that I don't get a cover save from the intervening gaunts. True LOS is fun and quite fitting for a cinematic game like 40K, but the rules could have been written much better. Thanks for the answers and have a nice dark millenium!