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.

nkelsch wrote:
I don't understand the confusion. TLOS is from the eyes of the firer to the entire body of the target.

*If it is physically obscured up to 25%, they get cover.
*If you shoot part of the LOS through a gap of intervening models even though you can see the entire model, they get cover.
*If you can see the entire model OVER a model or OVER the gap between two models, there is no cover.

Closer I am to the gap and taller I am, the better chance I will be seeing over the gap opposed to through it.

The confusion is due to people getting confused with other cover rules.

People keep trying to not only apply the "25% of the model must be covered" in this situation, where it specifically does not apply, and people keep thinking that drawing unobstructed true line of sight to a PART of the model, is the same as being able to draw unobstructed (ie passing through another unit) TLOS to the entire model. Or they apply the "25% for vehicles in area terrain" to the situation of "intervening models", but to non vehicle units.

Does intervening units apply to vehicles then without the 25%?

p74, vehicles need 25% coverage from intervening terrain or models

normal cover rules: 25% of model (vehicle, infantry, monster, whatever) must be "covered" via true LOS

area terrain: auto-cover for everything but vehicles, which still need the 25% as above

intervening models: grants obscured for everything, except vehicles (see above) even if the target is completely visible, so long as the firer draws true LOS to any part of the target through an intervening unit.

so basically only fliers are going to get around it (and likely wont get the save, not that they need it) or units on high hills, ruins, or reallllly tall guys are going to be able to see their target from head to too with out drawing true LOS through a another unit that is in between the two

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
So in that case I will just say: "My model fires at the head of your big Tyranid, therefore firing over the gap instead of through the gap and he will gain no cover-save."

No rules permission to "call your shot". If you can't see him in his entirety (over 75%) he's obstructed.
If, to trace line of sight to the model, you "fire" through a unit (even a gap in a unit) he's obstructed.

The image above is absolutely correct.

This. Kangodo can you please, for once this thread, find a rules quote to back up your assertions?

You have NO permission to "call a shot" to the models head. If you TLOS passthrough the unit , anywhere in your arc of shot, you grant a cover save.

Both rules apply at the same time - not 25% covered, but firing through. No cover save for the first, cover save for the second, meanig you have a cover save.

Really not tricky, and all done without making up any rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This. Kangodo can you please, for once this thread, find a rules quote to back up your assertions?

You have NO permission to "call a shot" to the models head. If you TLOS passthrough the unit , anywhere in your arc of shot, you grant a cover save.

Both rules apply at the same time - not 25% covered, but firing through. No cover save for the first, cover save for the second, meanig you have a cover save.

Really not tricky, and all done without making up any rules.

Except for the part where you made rules up.
Or do you want to cite the page where it says "anywhere in your arc of shot"?

I'm getting quite pissed off.
You keep making up rules and then accuse me of doing it while I am only using existing rules to clear up an error in the rules!

 DeathReaper wrote:
Mind citing a page and graph where this is allowed?

If only that would be so easy, but that still doesn't answer the question I asked.
Where do I shoot at a model when shots could both go over and through an intervening unit?

People here are saying that the 25%-rule doesn't apply to this.
So when do I shoot through a gap and when do I shoot over it?

Kangodo wrote:


People here are saying that the 25%-rule doesn't apply to this.
So when do I shoot through a gap and when do I shoot over it?

*Make a line which connects the top of the two models, that is your GAP.
*Trace LOS from the eyes of the shooter to the entire body of the target, which usually results in a 'cone of vision'
*If any part of that cone of vision passes through the gap, they get cover.

Taller the shooter or closer the shooter is to the gap, the greater chance that they can see with entirety over the gap. Imagine the space between models is 'glass'. If eyes of the model to the toes of the target would 'break the glass' then they get cover.

Kangodo - so you DIDNT make up that you can "call shots"?

I *did not* make up any rules; I explained what "shooting through", using the FACT that this game is TLOS, actually means. As opposed to yoru ENTIRELY made up concept that you can "call a shot" and pretend you are nto shooting through.

It clears everything up, if you are willing to listen and understand.

Youre getting pissed off because you're making up rules and being asked to substantiate it, or to accept that you made up rules. AS per the tenets of this forum please do one or the other.

This is how I understand it to work:

Yes, that's exactly true.

That's a very good reference.

Yep, that is 100% true.

If any part of your shooting would pass through the gap, you grant a cover save.

 Traceoftoxin wrote:
That's a very good reference.

Needs more grots-giving-cover-save-to-Reaver-Titan.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If any part of your shooting would pass through the gap, you grant a cover save.

Still making up rules, I see?
Because that "rule" cannot be found in the BRB.

Intervening Units talks about shots going through the gap.
"any part of your shooting" is completely made up by you.

nkelsch wrote:
*Make a line which connects the top of the two models, that is your GAP.

Understandable, because that is the definition of a GAP.

*Trace LOS from the eyes of the shooter to the entire body of the target, which usually results in a 'cone of vision'

It's called LINE of sight for a reason, can you quote the rule that says 'cone of vision'?

*If any part of that cone of vision passes through the gap, they get cover.

Except for the part where this is not a rule.

If eyes of the model to the toes of the target would 'break the glass' then they get cover.

To the toes of the target? There is no rule that supports this.
However, if we use the 25%-rule you would get cover if 25% of the target is covered by this 'glass'.

I really like your image and I agree with most situations.
But the last image uses a "cone of sight", which has no basis in the rules.
Now we have a shooting that both goes through and over the gap, giving the model 5+ and no cover-save at the same time.

at this point kangodo, honestly if you are still stgueing that you can see the head, and therfore 100% of the model unobstructed, despite the feet being obstrcuted, you have a logic failure.

your method, no one gets cover ever, because as long as I have unobstructed TLOS to any POINT on the model, I have unobstructed TLOS, however this is NOT the case as you repeatedly state, with no rules based backing.

you must have unobstructed TLOS to the whole model through intervening units, not just its head, or any other point of your choosing, you draw TLOS to a MODEL not a part of the model of your choosing.

BRB clearly states you draw LOS to models, not parts of models, drawing LOS to models does result in "cones" or "arcs" because you draw TLOS to the entire model to see if its covered/obscured, not a single point on the model.

why you keep saying that having unobstructed TLOS to the head counts as onobstructed TLOS to the entire model is either due to lack of comprehension, or you are simply too invested in this emotionally to see the point that others, and myself are trying to get you to see

The reason it's a "cone" (well, it's not a cone exactly, but close enough) is that's what you get when you start off from a point and end up at a plane - what you get when you're applying the "25% visible" stuff.

"If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit, or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save" P. 18

How do we know if it is obstructed, unless you take all targetable parts of the model into consideration?

The same applies to "if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it." P. 18

easysauce wrote:
at this point kangodo, honestly if you are still stgueing that you can see the head, and therfore 100% of the model unobstructed, despite the feet being obstrcuted, you have a logic failure.

That is not what I am arguing.
I am arguing that the 25%-rule should be used when firing through a gap, so that when 25% of the target is covered by a gap he will get a 5+ cover-save.
I am arguing against people who claim that if only the feet are obstructed (by the gap) you will get a cover save.

BRB clearly states you draw LOS to models, not parts of models, drawing LOS to models does result in "cones" or "arcs" because you draw TLOS to the entire model to see if its covered/obscured, not a single point on the model.

But these 'cones/arcs' are not supported by the rules.
What the rules do support is when a model is obscured for 25% from the point of view of the shooter.

why you keep saying that having unobstructed TLOS to the head counts as onobstructed TLOS to the entire model is either due to lack of comprehension,

I did not say that!
That other guy was arguing about shots going through and over intervening models and their gaps.
Seeing as there is no rule for shots going over and through something (except for the 25%-rule) that would mean the target both has a 5+ cover and no cover at all.
That's why I am saying the 25%-rule should be used at everything, including gaps.

or you are simply too invested in this emotionally to see the point that others, and myself are trying to get you to see

So now we start to attack persons? Great..

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit, or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save" P. 18
Now do we know if it is obstructed, unless you take all targetable parts of the model into consideration?
The same applies to "if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it." P. 18

It's silly to take all targetable parts

"If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target's model body (as defined on page 8) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save." pg 18
"If a target unit is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit..." pg 18
"Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it." pg 18

Combining those three rules would imply that:
1. Models who are hidden for 25% by terrain get a cover save.
2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

you think its silly to draw LOS to the model, as the rule book says, instead of an arbitraty point chosen by yourself?

feel free to play that way, but thems house rules, not BRB rules.

how can 25% of the model be covered from your line of sight, if you only use 10% (the head) of the model for determining LOS?

if you dont take all parts of the target model into account, you are not following the rules, and cant determine if 25% of the model is covered in the first place.

interviening models, rule specifically grants the obscured "even if the model is COMPLETLY visable"

you are arguing that inteviening models only grants obscured when the model is 25% covered, which is incorrect, as the actual rules in the BRB says even completly visable models can still get the interviening model obscured save.

you keep taking rules that apply to a different situation, normal cover, and try to apply them incorrectly to a completly different situation (intervening models), informing you of that is not an attack my good chap, its a correction.

your statements

2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

are not based in rules, and contradicts the rules completly.

interviening models rule explicitly states the target gets the save when completly visable(0% covered) , as multiple people have pointed out to you, multiple times.

retorting by claiming (contrary to the rules) that 25% is required, is not an arguement, its an assertion with no basis.

the rules cearly state no % is required for intervening models, the only exception is vehicles, which explicitly state in their section that they need 25% coverage for area terrain, terrain, and intervening models to grant the cover save.

Kangodo wrote:

But these 'cones/arcs' are not supported by the rules.
What the rules do support is when a model is obscured for 25% from the point of view of the shooter.

A Line segment is the space between two points.

It defines a point, Firing Models eyes. It defines a target.

It then says you have to determine what part of the model the 'other point' could be. So you have one end a fixed point, the other end an array of fixed points. This produces an ARC by definition. When you go to 3 Dimensions it becomes a 'cone'.

I am unsure why 4th grade math word problems which is explained by telling us the end points of a geometric equation using words somehow makes 'arcs/cones' invalid. They explicitly tell us to do one fixed point to an array of points which instantly becomes expressed as a 2D arc or 3D cone.

Easysauce, I have the feeling that you are completely misreading what I typed.
So I will try to make it clear, because I have the feeling that we actually agree on a lot of stuff.
But yes, implying that I am too emotionally invested to agree with you is attacking a person.

Cover:
The rules do not say what body-part we shoot at, it says we fire at the model.
This brings issues if a model is partially in cover: Is it hidden enough to claim cover it not?
'Determining Cover Saves' addresses this by ruling that a model gains a cover save if 25% or more is obscured from the shooter's PoV (pg 18).

Intervening Units:
'Intervening Units' give a cover save when the target is partially obscured by a third unit.
Since the rule 'Determining Cover Saves' mentions the 25% rule, I believe that with partially they mean 25%.
That is because the rule says "in the same way as if it was behind terrain", we cannot ignore that part!

Gaps:
'Intervening Units'-GAP gives a cover save when the shots go through the gap.
But the BRB does not tell us when a shot goes through a gap and when the shot goes over it.
'Intervening Units'-GAP does use the word "Similarly", which indicates that it works the same as with 'normal' Intervening Units (which means that it works "in the same way as if it was behind terrain".

no I know exactly what you are saying, you are applying "determining cover saves" rules to the ""intervening models" scenario,

when you should be applieing ONLY "intervening models" rules to the "intervening models" scenario.

your assumption that

I believe that with partially they mean 25%.
That is because the rule says "in the same way as if it was behind terrain", we cannot ignore that part!

is not based in the rules, you are taking a DIFFERENT rule (determining cover saves) and applying it to a different situation (intervening model)

despite your "belief" that partially literally means 25%, it does not.

partially, means partially, (more then none) not some set value you assume is correct.

determining cover saves, and intervening models, are different rules, stop applying one to the other, conferring a cover
save "just as if it was behind terrain" is not the same as them saying "the unit must be 25% covered by intervening models to confer a cover save".

I am not ignoring that part, you are simply getting something out of it that is not there. You GIVE the unit a cover save "just as if it was behind terrain", it doesnt say "to determine if a unit behind intervening models gets a cover save, use the rules for determining cover saves as normal"



how can both satements be true:
"25% of the non vehicle-model must be covered to be obscured via intervening models"
--what you state

"even if the (non vehicle) model is completely visable, it counts as obscured"
--what the BRB says


in the end, you very much are applying the wrong rules to the wrong situation, and arguing semantics like that the use of "similarily" in the "intervening models rule" means 25%, or means to use the OTHER rules, or something other then what "similarly" actually means.

you still dont get how the firer has a point (its eyes) and the target is a model (the whole model not just the head)

and that drawing LOS from the eyes to the model includes more then just the parts of the model you WANT to shoot... then I cant help you,

Why shouldn't I use that? Both are about targets in cover.
And the 'Intervening Units'-rule says "as if it was behind terrain".
The only thing that would be even clearer was if it literally said "Use the rules described in Determining Cover Saves" (With caps and everything!)

You are ignoring the "As if it was behind terrain"-part, you aren't allowed to do that!
It should be treated as if it was behind terrain, that means we have to apply those rules and those rules tell us it has to be in cover for at least 25%.
That rule prevents stuff like Titans and other gigantic models to gain cover save from simple Ork Boyz.

It's not my problem that you read that sentence in a wrong way.

how can both satements be true:
"25% of the non vehicle-model must be covered to be obscured via intervening models"
--what you state

"even if the (non vehicle) model is completely visable, it counts as obscured"
--what the BRB says

1. That second quote is talking about the gaps.
2. It tells us to treat the gap as if the unit was behind terrain, meaning that it should be covered for 25% by the gap (Even if you can completely see it, since a gap is nothing but air).

BRB is clear on this.
Treat the Intervening Unit as a piece of terrain.
Treat the gap as a piece of terrain.

Still making up rules, I see?

You are told to fire from A point to A range of points. This produces an arc. (I notice you have ignored that rebuttal once before, I will presume this is another "mistake" like "most people play" and do you the courtesy of drawing you attention to this again)

This arc tells you if you are firing through the gap, or over the gap.

Your 25% assertion has no basis in rules. Provide them, or concede the point.

Not making them up, just quoting them from a rulebook.
..unlike some people.

And no. You are told to fire at a model, not a range of points. Stop making things up.
This creates no arc at all, otherwise the BRB would tell us that it creates an arc. So stop making things up.
The arc, which doesn't exist, does not tell us if we fire through or above a gap. Again: Stop making things up.

I have provided the rules for the 25%-rule often enough.

And yes, in my entire history of Warhammer I have never seen something taller than 4" claiming a cover save from a bunch of Ork Boyz.
Not in my group, not in my LGS, nor in any Battle Report.
So that makes it okay to say: "most people".

Wrong, it makes it ok to say "most people I have played with"

Who you have played with is unlikely to be "most people"

Still making rules up. The 25% rule does not apply to the rule "firing through" because it tells you "even if completely visible". You ave quoted 25% rules whchi exist, but do not apply to this - but you know this.

Youre firing from a single point (the eyes) to the model. Does this or does this not create an arc? If you say "no" you are either unaware of basic geometry, or lying. Which is it?

My sample-data is sufficient enough to say "most people".
So sorry, I will say whatever the hell I want to say.

"As if it was behind terrain."
"Similarly"
You keep ignoring those words, do you do that on purpose?
It tells us that the 25%-rule also applies to these two matters.
You disagree with that. I'm fine with that, I am just happy I never have to play against your huge models who claim a cover save from Boyz.

So let's just "agree to disagree"? Because I am not going into a discussion when people ask me if I am stupid or lying.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wrong, it makes it ok to say "most people I have played with"

Who you have played with is unlikely to be "most people"

Still making rules up. The 25% rule does not apply to the rule "firing through" because it tells you "even if completely visible". You ave quoted 25% rules whchi exist, but do not apply to this - but you know this.

Youre firing from a single point (the eyes) to the model. Does this or does this not create an arc? If you say "no" you are either unaware of basic geometry, or lying. Which is it?

yeah, this is just beating a dead horse, kang seems unwilling or unable to aknowledge that for any amount of a model to be covered by anything, you have to draw LOS from the eyes of the firer to each point on the target, and see if 25% of the target is obscured.

this whole idea you you can simply "aim at the head" or pick a point on the target favorable to you to avoid intervening models (and by extension, basically all cover that doesnt cover 100% of the target) is simply not correct,

If we can simply choose what part of the model to shoot at, say "hey your orks head is 100% clear over that wall, so no cover for you" then no one gets cover unless they are 100% covered.

because thats what your misinterpretaion of intervening models, coupled with you using the rules for "determining cover saves" in place of the rules for "intervening models", means

you are literally saying, if the firer can draw unobstructed LOS to any part of the target model, then no cover for the target.

you are also literally saying words mean whole different paragrahs, imply a lot of "hidden" data in single words like "similarly" and "partially" that makes them contain unwritten information, instead of merly refering to the paragraphs context they are already in.

but I really dont expect an epiphany at this point as this has been pointed out multiple times by multiple people,

thread should be locked, its just the same person coming back with the same disproven arguements at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
This is how I understand it to work:

for those legitimately wondering how it works, the above graphic is correct

Kangodo wrote:

Combining those three rules would imply that:
1. Models who are hidden for 25% by terrain get a cover save.
2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

People are seriously arguing against this? And claiming to know how to read when they do it?

Ah Dakka, such a source of wisdom...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:

yeah, this is just beating a dead horse, kang seems unwilling or unable to aknowledge that for any amount of a model to be covered by anything, you have to draw LOS from the eyes of the firer to each point on the target, and see if 25% of the target is obscured.

Um, he is literally saying exactly what you just said...

Kangodo - show your sample size calculation to prove that assertion can be extrapolated to "most people". As you have failed to do so your "sample" is enough to say "most of the people I have played with" and nothing more. You can say the unqualified statement, however you would be categorically wrong in doing so.

You have failed to provide the rules required, and have, at every turn, made up rules to support your position and ignored rules which destroy it.

I will agree that you have no rules support, and nothing more.