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.

No, Tyron. All that not needing TLOS does is mean that you can choose to target that unit when you would normally be unable to.

That's it.

Exactly, so I don't need TLOS and you can only be obscured when using TLOS to see from the firer if the target is partially hidden, which I don't need to do.

Whether or not you use TLOS is COMPLETELY unrelated to how cover is determined. Is that clear enough?

Can you still manage to misinterpret my point?

ajfirecracker, a cover save is dependant on the TLOS of the firer yes?

That is how cover is determined.

How can you not understand that?

ajfirecracker wrote:Actually, CatPeeler, those rules do override the regular rules via Specific>General.

Specific >General would also apply to cover saves granted by SMS vs cover saves granted in general, wouldn't you say? Are they not specific vs general?

The SMS does not contradict the rules for normal cover. And even if it did, the wording does not limit what cover saves may be taken, it grants the unit cover saves.

Ah, but the wording does do exactly that. Grammatically, it's a clear case of object vs concept, in the same way that "meal" does not equal "hungry."

And even if it did limit the saves that may be taken, 5e uses the term 'in cover' to denote a unit that gets cover due to intervening models or terrain, so the unit would still get cover from the SMS rules.

Not exactly. The rules utilize "in cover" to denote the status of a unit which receives a cover save due to any of several causes. Again, object vs abstraction. Also, the SMS entry is very specific in defining two ways in which a unit can benefit from cover vs SMS. Because it does not say, "in addition to the normal rules for cover," we must assume that these are the only ways in which a target unit may utilize a cover save.

Also, the only one of those that has general rules is force weapons, and there the GK ones are different only because they're more specific.

Actually, they differ because the names aren't exactly identical. By the same token, "the cover you are in" is not exactly the same as "in cover."

A cover save is dependent on the point of view of the firer, not LOS.

Point of view determines both, but ignoring one does not let you ignore both.

CatPeeler is wrong. I'm not going to argue beyond that. I've stated my points and there's no reason to elaborate.

You keep forgetting that you still need to see the target to shoot at it (LOS) otherwise you wouldn't be able to hit them.

Depending on when seeing them if they're obscured you they get a cover save or not.

I don't understand why you leave out LOS when it is needed to determine if you can shoot at a unit.

Tyron wrote:You keep forgetting that you still need to see the target to shoot at it (LOS) otherwise you wouldn't be able to hit them.

Depending on when seeing them if they're obscured you they get a cover save or not.

I don't understand why you leave out LOS when it is needed to determine if you can shoot at a unit.

You're getting confused between the rules for targeting and the rules for cover. They are separate sets of rules that use the same game mechanic.

When you are shooting you normally require LOS to a model to trarget it. SMS allow you to target a model that is out of your LOS. They dont allow you to ignore LOS completely. They dont allow you to ignore cover saves. The only thing that a SMS allows you to do is target a unit that you cant see.

When checking to see if a unit can gain a cover save you check LOS from the model. Cover saves have nothing to do with targeting so the fact that a SMS is allowed to target a unit outside of its own LOS is irrelevant. All you do is check LOS to see if a unit is obscured. If it is it can gain a cover save regardless of how it was targeted.

This really isnt hard and we cant make it any easier for you to understand.

Tyron wrote:You keep forgetting that you still need to see the target to shoot at it (LOS) otherwise you wouldn't be able to hit them.

Depending on when seeing them if they're obscured you they get a cover save or not.

I don't understand why you leave out LOS when it is needed to determine if you can shoot at a unit.

Alright, now you're being a troll. The whole point of your argument is that you ignore LOS because the SMS says you don't need it. I make a post arguing the rules (including how LOS applies) and you jump on that as saying I'm ignoring LOS? That's ridiculous.

Yes, LOS matters. Yes, SMS lets you shoot despite not having LOS. No, SMS does not let you ignore models being in cover due to any particular cause.

Tyron, stop. You are killing the RAW with your RAI.

Just because you don't have to actually have TLOS to shoot at your target does not automatically count the unit as "not being obscured".

They unit is obscured, they are completely hidden behind the flipping tank.

People kill me when they do this..

ajfirecracker wrote:CatPeeler is wrong. I'm not going to argue beyond that. I've stated my points and there's no reason to elaborate.

Ah, the "Chewbacca Defense." Well played, sir. Well played.

CatPeeler wrote:

ajfirecracker wrote:CatPeeler is wrong. I'm not going to argue beyond that. I've stated my points and there's no reason to elaborate.

Ah, the "Chewbacca Defense." Well played, sir. Well played.

This is what I hate about these forums. He stated the facts, you cant come up with the answer to them (or just repeat the same irrelevant points). Why should he continue? Even though he's done here, he's still right. Otherwise he would be sitting here arguing with you (because you guys can't get it through your heads) for another 4 pages until the topic got locked.

Good for him, he doesnt have to waste time arguing this nonsense.

Night Lords wrote:This is what I hate about these forums. He stated the facts, you cant come up with the answer to them (or just repeat the same irrelevant points). Why should he continue? Even though he's done here, he's still right. Otherwise he would be sitting here arguing with you (because you guys can't get it through your heads) for another 4 pages until the topic got locked.

Or alternatively, I posted a fairly lengthy (and entirly new!) argument as to why "cover that they are in" is not the same as "in cover"-- which he didn't address at all--and then he decided to pick up his ball and go home.

Or did you not look at page 2?

He doesnt address it because youre grasping at straws and it doesnt follow with the rest of the rules, nor does it tell you it breaks any basic rules. Theyve told you ten times now why it doesnt work that way and you keep going.

Youre free to play page 2 however you want, but it doesnt really matter. This is not a conflict of two rules or one where there are two meanings (as cover is defined in the rule book). Its very simple - You do not need LoS, but they are in cover, they get a save.

Night Lords wrote:He doesnt address it because youre grasping at straws and it doesnt follow with the rest of the rules, nor does it tell you it breaks any basic rules. Theyve told you ten times now why it doesnt work that way and you keep going.

Youre free to play page 2 however you want, but it doesnt really matter. This is not a conflict of two rules or one where there are two meanings (as cover is defined in the rule book). Its very simple - You do not need LoS, but they are in cover, they get a save.

Again, if the codex stated that "...units which are IN COVER, or are considered IN COVER by touching..." you would be absolutely right. That's not what it says, though. The codex treats "cover" as a physical piece of terrain. The rulebook treats cover as a abstract 'state' that a unit is in.

One is a thing, the other is an idea. I'm not pulling this out of thin air, or grasping at straws--this is how language works, on a pretty fundamental level.

If you can acknowledge that an object and an idea are not the same things, it follows that the codex is different than the brb. Once you have done that, Specific > General.

If you deny that an object is different than an idea, then you are denying how basic grammar functions.

i think its time the tau got a new codex ; )

the 3rd ed book is outdated and needs revisions!

IMHO, the SMS debate should allow for no cover...

HOWEVER, since 5th/4th ed both changed the rules for shooting, the wording in the SMS has exclusive parameters from shooting guidlines in the brb... and does give cover saves... even though it was not intended :(

CatPeeler wrote:

Again, if the codex stated that "...units which are IN COVER, or are considered IN COVER by touching..." you would be absolutely right. That's not what it says, though. The codex treats "cover" as a physical piece of terrain. The rulebook treats cover as a abstract 'state' that a unit is in.

You are assuming it means in physical cover. It does not say that. Any reasonable person would say the benefits from the cover they are in means, you know, theyre in cover.

BUT, if you cant acknowledge youre wrong, so be it. Im done with this topic as I really dont care.

You can say Im taking the "chewbacca tactic", but really, it seems its like youre taking the "Jar Jar Binks" method more than anything.

Nightwatch wrote:Using your own tanks as cover(in the rhino situation) is stupid and pointless in real life because they are another thing for the enemy to shoot at, just as your own men don't like being used as a meat shield. To represent this, the rules were formulated to not include vehicles as being classified as cover, and therefore the SMS just spirals behind the tank, blows up the marines, and the devilfish goes back to the hangar.

Wrong. Ever been part of a Stryker unit? The infantry uses the cover of the IFV if they start taking fire.

And more to the topic, If you get a cover save for units that block LOS to a target, so how can a rhino not be classified as cover? You can have LOS without cover, how can you say you can't have cover without needing LOS? doesn't make sense to me. *shrug*

The crux of the problem is that 5th edition changed the definition of cover. In 4th, when the Tau Codex was written, cover was about physical terrain. Now in 5th, it's about obscuration. This double gimps the SMS since now things that blocked LOS before no longer do (meaning fewer situations where its ability to fire at targets out of LOS has any value) and you pretty much always get a cover save against it where before you did not.

Night Lords wrote:You are assuming it means in physical cover. It does not say that. Any reasonable person would say the benefits from the cover they are in means, you know, theyre in cover.

I'm not assuming anything--the way the sentence is structured, it's the only possible interpretation. Look at it this way: if a model is placed within area terrain, that model is in cover. If a model is in cover, however, it may or may not be in area terrain. The difference between "the cover they are in" and "in cover" may seem petty or rediculous, but semantics are a pretty crucial element of RAW. If it was just a matter of comparing cover to cover, it would be a non-issue because the words are obviously identical. When you're comparing phrases, though, little differences can have pretty huge effects.

Again, when I say that "cover they are in, or touching" refers to area terrain (rather than the status of being 'in cover'), it's because--grammatically speaking--that's the only thing it *can* mean. To put it simply, you can't touch a status. If you argue that the slight differences in phrasing don't matter, then you're no longer basing your argument strictly upon what is written, but upon what you think the author really 'means' when he wrote it. That way, my friend, lies RAI.

I'm really not trying to be obstinate or gain an advantage here. Let's be honest--75 or 80% of the time, the target is MEQ or better, in which case the whole issue is entirely moot. If this discussion has been overly frustrating, I apologize. However, the language is what it is. On that point, there really isn't much room for debate.

I am not trying to stir the pot, but if you go by the Adepticon FAQ (TAU.27E.02) It says " As the weapon does not require line of sight, they may only claim a cover save if at least half of their models are actually in terrain and/or touching a piece of intervening terrain" Catpeeler would be correct IMO.
I think we all can agree that the FAQ is the best source to date.

I dont think you are stirring the pot, but according the tenants of posting in YMTC (from a stickied post at the top of this forum):

"The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on."

Thus the Adepticon FAQ has no bearing on this topic as of yet. Thats not to say the FAQ has no bearing on how people play, but for the purposes of YMTC, it does not. I dont play Tau, and as I've stated in my previous post, I am no longer sure, so it is something I would discuss with my buddies before playing...

Edit: Fixed some grammer and post structure

You know the more I read the SMS the more I'm inclined to go with CatPeeler.

I will quote the whole SMS and break it down.

The smart missile system fires self guiding missiles with the intelligence of a drone, which first search for then hunt down the target, passing around any blocking terrain. The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer. (the last bit is irrelevant).

Now let's break this down.

In the description it tells us the target can only get a cover save based on two conditions;

a) Cover they are in
Clearly the command squad were not in cover, if they had been they would receive a cover save, no dispute.

b) Touching if it lies between them and the firer.
They were not in or touching the trees nor were they touching the tank.

Using these two conditions which the SMS only gives to allow the unit to take a cover save are not, they do not receive a cover save and we must ignore the obscured rule in the BRB as the SMS has defined how a target can only get a cover save.

To ignore the very specifics of the SMS rules would be an unfaire one as we would have to ignore each special rule of all things in each Codex. However silly/overpowered/doesn't work the rule is we must accept it until the said army gets a new Codex.

The Adepticon FAQ for obscured targets is a broad ruling as it doesn’t single out the SMS (which has it’s own conditions compared to other units rules for shooting) so I think we can give that a miss here.

Tyron wrote:You know the more I read the SMS the more I'm inclined to go with CatPeeler.

I will quote the whole SMS and break it down.

The smart missile system fires self guiding missiles with the intelligence of a drone, which first search for then hunt down the target, passing around any blocking terrain. The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer. (the last bit is irrelevant).

Now let's break this down.

In the description it tells us the target can only get a cover save based on two conditions;

a) Cover they are in
Clearly the command squad were not in cover, if they had been they would receive a cover save, no dispute.

b) Touching if it lies between them and the firer.
They were not in or touching the trees nor were they touching the tank.

Using these two conditions which the SMS only gives to allow the unit to take a cover save are not, they do not receive a cover save and we must ignore the obscured rule in the BRB as the SMS has defined how a target can only get a cover save.

To ignore the very specifics of the SMS rules would be an unfaire one as we would have to ignore each special rule of all things in each Codex. However silly/overpowered/doesn't work the rule is we must accept it until the said army gets a new Codex.

The Adepticon FAQ for obscured targets is a broad ruling as it doesn’t single out the SMS (which has it’s own conditions compared to other units rules for shooting) so I think we can give that a miss here.

This is how it worked in 4th edition. This is not how it works in 5th edition. In 5th you are in cover if you are obscured from the firer. If the command squad is obscured from the firer then they are in cover. I'll give you the quote again.

BGB, p21, When are models in cover? wrote:
When any part of the target model is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover.

So the command squad are in cover as stated by that rule because they are obscured from the point of view of the SMS (you measure LOS from the individual weapon mounts on a vehicle).

Now the SMS rules do nothing to state that this cover save is ignored or that the models dont count as being obscured. The line about models in or touching cover is meaningless because models count as being in cover when they are obscured, not when they are in a terrain feature. It refers to rules that no longer exist and so cannot be applied.

Also if you infer the word only into the SMS rules then that is your interpretation rather than the rules as they have been written. The game cannot be played if we all interpret the rules differently, and because we dont know the intention of the GW dev team, we can only play the game as it is written in the rules.

"It refers to rules that no longer exist and so cannot be applied."

Tau Codex"The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer."

BRB Page 23Inside area terrain: "Target models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover regardless of the direction of the shot is coming from. This represents their increased chance of diving into or behind a piece of covering terrain."

This rule clearly stands as it is within the 5th ed rules arguing otherwise is dishonest. Again you get some rules in Codex which are out of date/don’t make sense/silly but they do override the BRB none the less.

The rules for SMS make it very clear how a unit can only get a cover save, you can keep quoting obscured targets all you like, but it doesn’t say in the SMS obscured targets get a cover save (reading from the SMS description on how the weapon works has shown it is impossible for a target to be obscured).

Codex>BRB

If you denounce this then you should not use your armies special rules when you play a game if they contradict the BRB.

Tyron wrote:

Tau Codex"The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer."

The Tau codex does not say if they are in "area terrain", as several of you are suggesting. It talkes about being in cover.

You have been given this quote from the BRB, but let me give it to you again....here are the 5th ed rules for being "in cover":
BGB, p21, When are models in cover? "When any part of the target model is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover."

When compared with the wording for SMS, being obsured is being "in cover", and thus cover saves may be taken. There is no conflict between the actual wording of the BRB and the Tau codex. So there is no Codex>BRB issue. The only conflict is with the way cover used to work in 4th, and the way it works now, in 5th.

Face it, the rules for being "in cover" have changed from 4th to 5th. All that matters is that a sqaud is obscured from the view. Unfrotuantely, even though the SMS allow you to target something w/o seeing it, it's wording doesn't get past the rules for 5th ed cover. It is just one of many problems that exists in several codexes, thanks to the change from 4th to 5th.

Be glad that you can stil even use SMS...many codexes lost pieces of wargear/upgrades simply because cannot be used; they now to NOTHING in 5th ed, whatsoever.

And yet the rest of your quote extends to;

"This is intentionally generous, and it represents the fact that the warrior unlike the model, will be actively trying to take cover (as well as the smoke, explosions and flying debris that are mercifully absent from our tabletop battlefields)."

As established they were too far from physical cover for them to dive behind (actively trying to take cover) and there were no smoke, explosions and flying debris near that area as I was only firing my SMS there and the rest of the army shot at his on the other side of the board.

The wording of the SMS is very clearly implying physical cover as again, due to the mechanics of SMS nothing can be obscured, but I do understand where you’re coming from.

Tyron wrote:

The wording of the SMS is very clearly implying physical cover as again, due to the mechanics of SMS nothing can be obscured, but I do understand where you’re coming from.

Yes, it IMPLIES physical cover, as that was the only kind of cover available when the codex was written.

It never STATES physical cover is the only way to get cover saves from SMS. The rules only care about what is written...never about what is implied.

In 5th, cover can be found from obsurement and smoke (as you pointed out). Neither of these are physical cover, yet they grant models the benefit of being "in cover". In fact, in 5th, they grant the exact same amount of cover as being inside of area terrain, such as ruins.

Again about the obscurement thing....the SMS rules do not get around it. Sure, you can shoot w/o seeing the target, but the rules in the Tau codex do change the fact that you still fired at an "obscured" target, by the definition of "obscured" in the BRB; thus there is no codex>BRB issue...the Codex never mentions that negates cover from being "obscured".

Obscured = being "in cover". I know you don't like it, but that is the rule.

Welcome to 5th edition.

Everyone of us knows Codex Trumps BGB.
This is especially true when regarding wargear.

A Perfect Example, is Smoke Launchers
C:SM Smoke Launchers: See BGB
We check 5th BGB and smoke launchers grant the vehicle "obscured" status for the following turn.

C: DH, C:BT Smoke Launchers downgrade all penetrating hits to glancing.

We have 2x definitions. One in the BGB and One in the Codex.

A model does not gain cover from SMS because of intervening objects, or being obscured, as they have to be touching it if it lies between them and the firer. It's stated right in the SMS entry.

SMS defines what "cover" is in it's wargear description.
You are either IN IT or TOUCHING IT. That's it.

This is incredibly simple hence my short post immediately after the OP.

To quote yourself Alerian
The rules only care about what is written...never about what is implied.

That is exactly right. What is written... everything that is written in the rule, not just part of it.

The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer.

Your sentence is contrived and attempting to only focus on a portion of the sentence rather than it's entirety. Saying that because a part of it is obscured and that it therefore counts as "in cover" based on the full sentence is reaching as the sentence clearly means physically IN cover. You know this by looking at the whole sentence.

When any part of the target model is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover." This clearly falls under the second portion of the sentence where "IF IT LIES BETWEEN THEM AND THE FIRER", they gain cover only if they are touching it.

The OP is correct. If they aren't touching it, they don't gain a cover save if it is intervening.

Paidinfull:

Cover rules have changed in 5th......

Whether you like it or not, an obscured target is "in cover", by definition in 5th ed, not "behind cover".

The SMS rules allow cover saves for models that are "in cover".

It never stipulates "in area terrain" or "in physical cover".

Obscurement = "in cover", by definition, and by the wording of SMS, cover saves may be taken.

I understand that this was not the intent when the rule was written; however, it is the rule now, and we must play by the rules as they are currenly written.