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.

Kevin949 wrote:Now my post seems out of context since you edited yours. Haha.

Always quote the person you're responding to!

Now, if you go back and edit your post, people will think you're doing it just to try and retract what you said.

Kevin949 wrote:But that's just it, let's say there is a 4 man squad and that sponson can only see 1 guy. The LR causes 3 wounds that are unsaved...you still apply them to the unit as a whole regardless to the LR seeing them or not. So because the sponson can't see them you're saying that they don't get a cover save unless they're in area terrain even though the sponson has no way to see the other 3 members of the group?

*edit*
Now my post seems out of context since you edited yours. Haha. Also, tobewilly, I appended my post above just FYI.

*edit 2*
And yes, you're right, they would get no cover save from the storm bolter with the 360 degree firing arc...but the sponson LOS limitations would still confer a cover save against that weapon.

Sorry about the edit. That just popped into me head, and at the time, no one responed. My bad. Still learning the etiquette.

But I'm pretty sure you can't claim a cover save from one weapon in a unit that is firing at you and not the other. You either get it or you don't.

Grakmar wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Now my post seems out of context since you edited yours. Haha.

Always quote the person you're responding to!

Now, if you go back and edit your post, people will think you're doing it just to try and retract what you said.

Only if I didn't leave my original response in there, which I do. But ya, I shoulda hit quote. Just didn't want the mile long quote string to go on. Oh well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ToBeWilly wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:But that's just it, let's say there is a 4 man squad and that sponson can only see 1 guy. The LR causes 3 wounds that are unsaved...you still apply them to the unit as a whole regardless to the LR seeing them or not. So because the sponson can't see them you're saying that they don't get a cover save unless they're in area terrain even though the sponson has no way to see the other 3 members of the group?

*edit*
Now my post seems out of context since you edited yours. Haha. Also, tobewilly, I appended my post above just FYI.

*edit 2*
And yes, you're right, they would get no cover save from the storm bolter with the 360 degree firing arc...but the sponson LOS limitations would still confer a cover save against that weapon.

Sorry about the edit. That just popped into me head, and at the time, no one responed. My bad. Still learning the etiquette.

But I'm pretty sure you can't claim a cover save from one weapon in a unit that is firing at you and not the other. You either get it or you don't.

No worries. About the vehicle thing though...you're absolutely right, in terms of infantry firing at infantry. Vehicle shooting is a little different though and even though each weapon is part of the same "unit" they do each have their own different LOS and LOS determines cover or no cover.

Except its not lack of LOS that gives the cover save in the first place. Thats why we cannot use the section on units being partially in cover as a reason that units initially have cover. Pg 22 talks about a unit partially in cover, and how we then check to see how many models are out of sight. There is a lack of any rule giving models cover simply by being out of sight in the first place.

Please note that being out of sight doesnt give any of the models cover to begin with, we simply use the rule of not being in sight to determine which units are to be lumped into the "have cover group". This means that if none of the unit is actually in cover, we dont use this rule, since the rule states "Models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover for this purpose." Not in general, only for this particular purpose. Models that are out of LOS are only being considered to be in cover for this one purpose...there is no cover being granted for being out of LOS in general.

And please note that it doesnt say out of LOS, merely out of sight. So this again brings in the problem of night fighting, since units can be out of sight but not LOS for night fighting purposes.



Sliggoth

No, they're out of range which is an automatic miss, as out of sight is a definitive result when checking line of sight thus they are closely the same, one is a term and one is a result.

Some of you *really* need to read the rules first before commenting. This is a touchy scenario, but it is made worse by people not understanding the rules.


If a vehicle has 4 guns, it is treated as a unit with 4 models. You look at each firing gun, and see how much of the target is visible.
Lets say it has sponsons, a turret, and a hull mounted gun.
You check each one, and see if the target is in cover.
Sponson 1: Only 4 of the 10 in the target unit is obscured.
Sponson 2: 7 of the 10 are obscured
Hull mount: 5 of the 10 are obscured
Turret: 2 of the 10 are obscured.

Since at least half of the guns see at least half of the target as obscured, the target unit gets a cover save against *all* of the vehicles guns.
If the LR player decided to *not* shoot the turret gun, then the target unit does not get a cover save from *any* of the vehicle guns.



Sliggoth

Please note that being out of sight doesnt give any of the models cover to begin with, we simply use the rule of not being in sight to determine which units are to be lumped into the "have cover group". This means that if none of the unit is actually in cover, we dont use this rule, since the rule states "Models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover for this purpose." Not in general, only for this particular purpose. Models that are out of LOS are only being considered to be in cover for this one purpose...there is no cover being granted for being out of LOS in general.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Think of a unit that is mostly behind a vehicle, and you can only see one of them, the others are completely out of view; your way they would not get a cover save, and they clearly do.

No they dont get a cover save rofl.

THey get a cover save, as you count models in the unit that are out of LOS as being IN COVER.

What is giving them cover? The vehicle, which is a unit. Meaning the cover is a 4+

Not difficult.

But its NOT the vehicle thats giving them a cover save in most cases. A model that is outside of a firing arc is simply outside of the range of the firing arc, there is no vehicle blocking the los, the gun simply cannot traverse to the correct direction.

To illustrate, lets think about at a unit of 20 infantry and an IG tank with sponsons.

The unit is roughly 2-3 feet from the tank, to the right. Looking at the diagram on pg 59 we see that the sponson can fire directly to the right as well as farther forward. The sponson gun cannot fire at a model even splightly to the rear.

Now if 9 of the infantry are within the arc but the other 11 are slightly out of the arc to the rear we find that the weapon can fire at the unit but it cannot see over half of the unit. The LOS to these models is not being blocked, they are not in any sort of area cover, and there is nothing between them and the gun. The tank itself is NOT between the gun and the models, so it cannot be providing cover, as defined by the BRB.


The BRB specifically mentions that cover is used to block shrapnel and flying debris (this is how they cover the idea that models out of range can be chosen as losses) so simply being out of range of a weapon is NOT considered being in cover.



Sliggoth

nosferatu1001 wrote:THey get a cover save, as you count models in the unit that are out of LOS as being IN COVER.

What is giving them cover? The vehicle, which is a unit. Meaning the cover is a 4+

Not difficult.

Thank you Nos, I wrote this with rules about 2 pages ago but apparently no one wants to read the actual rules, they just want to make them up as they go.

That is a great hypothetical situation Sliggoth, but that is not the question that is being asked. Maybe you should start another thread to deal with that issue specifically. In this case the LR is blocking LoS, 4+ save.

Except if we read the rule in question, we find that the models in question do NOT have a cover save.

Why? Because there is no rule granting cover for merely being out of LOS.


Look at it again. Models do not get a cover save based solely upon them being out of LOS. This is the important point that is being glossed over. Yes, we do use LOS to determine cover in some cases; whether or not a model is obscured depends on whether or not some other model or piece of terrain is blocking the LOS. Yes, if some of the models are determined to be in cover (pg 22) we then use a LOS to determine whether or not other models are in cover or not (but this is ONLY used for this single purpose, if part of the unit has already been determined to be within cover). But please note that being out of LOS = being in cover is only being allowed for this single purpose here, this means that being out of LOS does not = cover otherwise.

The key point is that simply being out of LOS is not adequate to grant a model cover status.

The rules would actually be a lot simpler if this were the case, if they had boiled it down to saying: if a model isnt completely in LOS then it is in cover. But thats not how they chose to write the rules...


In the case given, we do not have the exact position of the surrounding infantry so it is possible that the vehicle is blocking LOS for many of them, but for many of them it may simply be that they are outside of the firing arc of the side sponson. I created the 20 model squad to illustrate the point that the LR itself does not block LOS to many of the models that are out of LOS.

Sliggoth

but for many of them it may simply be that they are outside of the firing arc of the side sponson

+1

the firing arc has nothing to do with LOS. And cover is applied to models obscured by intervening models or terrain pieces. However you can see through your own unit as if it wasnt there. That means the Raider has LOS to all orks, but his lascannon cannot shoot all of them, because of its firing arc. Therefore we dont have cover here.

Sliggoth, you completely ignored my statement to you, and instead chose to just say the same thing over and over.

Try this scenario.

You are shooting at a unit of marines, you can clearly see 4 of them, the other 6 are completely hidden behind a building, but are not in the building, nor in any terrain at all.

Do they get a cover save??



Nazdreg: Read the vehicle rules again, for vehicle weapons, you determine LoS by looking down the barrel, so the firing arc is the same as the LoS.

It seems to me the whole argument comes down to if firing arcs represent a vehicle weapon's LOS. We already know that a model that is completely out of sight is considered in cover, pg 22 tells us this and gives no provisions for why the model is out of LOS...it just matters that it is. So the next question is how do you determine LOS for a vehicle weapon? Pg 58 tells us to point them at the target and then trace the line of sight from the weapon's mounting and along it's barrel to see if the shot is blocked by terrain or models. While this doesn't come out and say directly that a vehicle weapon's line of sight is traced in that manner, it strongly implies it. My personal take would be that if a model is outside of the weapon's firing arc, it is out of sight, and therefore in cover.

@coredump Im sorry if you felt that I ignored your somment. What I have been trying to develop is exactly why a model may get a cover save if it is outisde of LOS.

If a model is behind a building then we are told by the rules that it is obscured by the building, so it will receive a 4+ cover save.

However, it appears that a model that is only being granted a cover save via the rules on pg 22 (ie is outside of the firing arc only, is not in cover or being blocked by cover/ units) leaves us with a quandry. What cover save does it receive?


There is no LOS blocking unit. It isnt the firing vehicle that is in the way of the LOS. There is no terrain involved at all. For sponsons its simply that the weapon wont point that way. Which isnt quite the same thing as LOS being blocked by the vehicle...


So after working through this we still come to the point where if simply being out of LOS grants a unit cover, there is no particular number given for this save.


Sliggoth

PS I would very much like to have this worked out so that there was a clear way to rule a cover save here, since thats the way I have previously ruled in various tourneys over the years; but the questions raised here now have me doubting that there is a clear easy answer with the RAW.

Except you arent dealing with this situation, which is the sponson being unable to draw LOS to all models because a UNIT is in the way.

I'd suggest starting a new thread if you want to discuss whether being out of LOS with no "cover" at all, not even the vehicle, grants a cover save, because otherwise this thread HAS been answered.

Sliggoth, you are not contradicting yourself.

Yes, if some of the models are determined to be in cover (pg 22) we then use a LOS to determine whether or not other models are in cover or not (but this is ONLY used for this single purpose, if part of the unit has already been determined to be within cover).

So, we only worry about being out of LoS if part of that unit is within cover. Your words, your assertion.

If a model is behind a building then we are told by the rules that it is obscured by the building, so it will receive a 4+ cover save.

So why the change? In my scenario, no model was 'within cover', but some were out of LoS. Your first statement says they should not be considered.... your second statement says they should be considered. Why the change?

Because I was hoping we could develop a real workable way to determine how and if cover should be applied in this situation.

The problem that we have here is that if a model is out of LOS, this gives it cover from the pg 22 rules but if there is nothing BLOCKING the LOS then we have no number to assign as the cover save...

If there is a buidling blocking the LOS, then we are told by the rules what the cover save will be, if it is various other bits of terrain or units we are also told what the cover save will be. If there is a cover save given solely by the rule on pg 22 then we have: the model is completely out of LOS so it is in cover, but there is no way to assign a value to this cover.

Does this even matter to the question asked by the OP? Well, if we examine the question in detail then we find it is indeed relevant. Because if a weapon has a limited firing arc, then there is no way to aim/ turn the weapon outside of the firing arc...which means that any model outside of the firing arc cannot be said to be obscured by anything. The LOS rules have us check to see if the weapon can be aimed at a model and then check LOS. No ability to aim, then no way for the model to be blocked by anything that can provide cover.

And that is why it is important to see if there is any way in which we can determine a cover save value here, simply being outside of the firing arc grants cover but provides no cover save that can be used by the model.


Aiming involves looking along the barrel of the weapon, this is then how we check to see if the LOS is blocked by anything and if so then a cover save is given by whatever is blocking the LOS. The problem with firing arcs is that they dont block the LOS as described in the brb, they simply limit where we can look.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:The problem with firing arcs is that they dont block the LOS as described in the brb, they simply limit where we can look.

Err. . .if we cannot look at it, it is out of (line of) sight.

Or did I miss read something again?

I would like to draw everyone's attention to page 22, column two, paragraph 1, the last sentence:

"Models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover for this purpose."

THEREFORE: If the weapon cannot draw line of sight to the model, then the model has cover from the weapon.

Much as I want to agree with Sliggoth, RAW does in fact state that the orks get the cover save. (If I were the ork player, though, I'd never ask for it in that case.)

That said, why are you in your shooting phase surrounded by orks in a LR? Ram them and get them off of you, then shoot them.

Solkan - Sliggoths query is what cover save value to assign - they are "in cover" but from what?

I still go with: the vehicle itself is preventing drawing LOS, therefore it is a unit blocking LOS and thus it is a 4+

Excatly, they do indeed have cover, but the cover rules are written so that there must be something blocking the LOS; something that is protecting it from incoming shots. There is a chart listing what objects give as numbers for various cover effects, all from blocking LOS and / or providing physical protection from the shots.

While I would like to go with the idea that the vehicle itself is blocking the LOS...its not according to how the rules determine blocking LOS. We move the barrel, point it at the target, and then look down the barrel. For a firing arc, there is no ability to aim at anything outside of the arc, in many cases if the weapon could turn a bit farther it would be able to aim clearly at the target and have LOS but because it has a smaller arc it cannot be so aimed.

Since the weapon cant be aimed in that direction, we can only give the model cover because of the rule on pg 22. If it was possible to give the model cover from other rules it hasnt been presented so far--which is one of the reasons I so wanted to someone find another way to provide cover. The pg 22 rules do give a way to give any model outside of LOS cover, but it then fails to give us a way to determine what KIND of cover, 6+, 5+ etc.

Its the limit of the firing arc that is allowing the pg 22 rule to kick in, nothing else unfortunately.


Sliggoth

However the firing arc is, by definition, a limitation fo the vehicle - if the model was not there, and just the gun was on a turret mount, it would not have any blocked LOS at all.

The de facto blocking element is the vehicle - a weird way of looking at it, but it does give a rational answer.

Yes it does give a rational answer, but it does not help us with the problem of how cover saves are given.

The LOS needs to be blocked by something, units have to either be in cover or behind cover to receive the associated cover save. At least this is how the cover saves on pg 21 are developed. Being outside of a firing arc however doesnt give the model cover in this way, we have to go over to the rule on pg 22 to find a way to give these models cover.

To receive a 4+ cover save for being behind other models, well a model has to be behind the models from the point of view of the firing model. And how do we determine this? We get down, aim the weapon, trace a path along the barrel of the weapon. So...simply being outside the firing arc fails to provide cover from this criteria, we do not find the LOS to be blocked by an intervening model. Yes, the model is out of LOS because of the constraints of the firing arc, but no there isnt a blocking model in the path of the LOS.

Sliggoth

@ Sliggoth

I think I get what your on about correct me if i'm wrong,

your saying that a 4+ save from a model being in the way does not apply to a model that is out of LOS from a sponson because the value of a save is determined by what is stopping you getting LOS

e.g. in coredumps example the building is providing a 4+ save, because building are listed as 4+. If it had been a hedge they'd get a 5+.

With the sponson the only thing blocking LOS is the limitation of the sponsons own movement, not some a piece of terrain or model. I can see why people are saying the unit with get 4+ because the LR although not in the way (by your definition) it is limiting its own LOS due to it very design.

In my mind though a 4+ seems a little high, but then again if 20 orks are surrounding my vehichle i'm suprised its still alive , Sliggoth if you think the LR can not grant a cover save and that the Ork unit is only getting a cover save from being out of LOS then i'd go with a 6+.

But as I was saying the sponson *itself* isnt blocking LOS - the travel of the sponson is blocking LOS, and the vehicle is what is blocking the travel of the sponson.

So the vehicle is blocking the (sponson, turret) from travelling and so confers a 4+ save. Doesnt help hull mounted weapons however....

DaveL wrote:Much as I want to agree with Sliggoth, RAW does in fact state that the orks get the cover save. (If I were the ork player, though, I'd never ask for it in that case.)

That said, why are you in your shooting phase surrounded by orks in a LR? Ram them and get them off of you, then shoot them.

you got to watch out with ramming orks haha I had a guy Ram my tank bustas and he found a lovely tank hammer. granted I did kill 6 of my own guys :(

cgage00 wrote:

DaveL wrote:Much as I want to agree with Sliggoth, RAW does in fact state that the orks get the cover save. (If I were the ork player, though, I'd never ask for it in that case.)

That said, why are you in your shooting phase surrounded by orks in a LR? Ram them and get them off of you, then shoot them.

you got to watch out with ramming orks haha

True. But one guaranteed hit from tank shocking isn't as bad as 15 guaranteed hits the next assault phase because the LR failed to move. Take a chance, man.

Squiggoth, the rules are actually fairly clear on which save to use. Something which conceals models but doesn't physically stop the gun from hitting the model gives a 5+ or 6+, depending on how much concealment is there. Fortifications specifically built for protecting models inside give a 3+. Other things give a 4+. As the guns are physically unable to get LOS to all the orks, 5+ and 6+ don't apply; as the LR isn't built to protect models from itself, the 3+ doesn't apply. 4+ it is.

Though, again, I think the brother is being unreasonable. And kind of a jerk.

So in reading the rule book in the vehicle firing section it does actually state that you use all weapon sponsons and view points to determine if any gun will be fired against a cover save. Can't remember verbatim but basically it was saying that even if one sponson is firing that if any/all of the other weapons on the vehicle can see the unit then they wouldn't get a cover save. So, in this situation since the rest of the vehicle could most likely plainly see the orcs they would not get a cover save in that instance.