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.

If I have a unit behind a flight stand can I claim cover from intervening models, even if the only thing obscuring it is the flight stand itself?

No. The flight stand is there for practical reasons, but it's not really part of the model.

 Random Dude wrote:
No. The flight stand is there for practical reasons, but it's not really part of the model.

Please provide a quote for this. I comes as part of the model kit, so yes therefore it is a part of the model.

No. Claiming cover from a thing that is only there because plastic is more dense than air and does not float on its own.
As for the quote, I'm pretty sure the rulebook states that you can't bring your cover with you. I've seen some pretty elaborate flying bases with ruins and wreckages and all sorts of things that definately block LOS but to use those to give cover to models behind it is modeling to an advantage.

Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the bases of their models are always ignored from the point of view of determining cover. You cannot take your cover with you!

despite the flight stand being physically part of the plastic model its a scenic element to make it look like its flying, its obviously not hull, a decorative element on the model like banners, or a weapon.

.

Interestingly enough, the rulebook says that you can't claim cover from rocks or other scenic elements stuck on a model's base, but doesn't actually exclude the base itself from providing cover.

So technically if the base obscures enough of the target, it will in fact get a cover save.

I rather doubt that would fly at the table, though. The general assumption is that the base is just there for measurement and to hold the model up, and is otherwise ignored.

 insaniak wrote:
Interestingly enough, the rulebook says that you can't claim cover from rocks or other scenic elements stuck on a model's base, but doesn't actually exclude the base itself from providing cover.

So technically if the base obscures enough of the target, it will in fact get a cover save.

I rather doubt that would fly at the table, though. The general assumption is that the base is just there for measurement and to hold the model up, and is otherwise ignored.

This was how I read it as well. I am not saying HIWPI when I say it provides cover, but looking solely at the RAW I would say it does.

Under "Flyers and Measuring" it says:

The base of a Flyer is effectively ignored, except for when:
-The Flyer is in close combat, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle's hull, its base or both.
-Models are embarking or disembarking from the Flyer, in which case the base of the Flyer is used as an Access Point."

So the question is; is the clear flight stand part of the "base" or is it a separate entity? I personally count it as part of the base and thus you pretend it isn't there as cover is not one of the two exceptions. Others may play it differently.

*edit*
Unless we're talking about a skimmer and then none of this applies.

No way. Otherwise you could creep across the board with the flyer, and it's scenic base with a unit or two behind it using it as cover.

Nope. Flyers in-game technically are not sliding along the table on a piece of transparent plastic.

The More You Know...

I really think anybody who spent more than 1 second to think about this should be lobotomized. Who in their right mind would ask such a ridiculous question?

VanHallan wrote:
I really think anybody who spent more than 1 second to think about this should be lobotomized. Who in their right mind would ask such a ridiculous question?

No gak.

Of course,
How dare someone ask a Question on a Forum dedicated to trying to figure out the unusual Rule interactions that Game Workshop's "Wonderful" skill at writing creates....

JinxDragon wrote:
Of course,
How dare someone ask a Question on a Forum dedicated to trying to figure out the unusual Rule interactions that Game Workshop's "Wonderful" skill at writing creates....

Except there are legitimate questions, and interpretations, and then there are Easter egg hunts........guess which this falls into? Hint: it ain't the first two.

Where in the Tenets where does it state not to ask 'Easter Egg' type questions?
Maybe you are wondering why I care so much about this but it is simple: I treat this forum as a place for academical type discussions and debates.

It isn't just a place to find out how other people are playing this game, to find celerity when a Rule makes little sense or to ask for help locating something that is being over-looked in the book. It is also a place to discuss really bizarre, broken and unusual Rule interactions with no intention more then to simply discuss and debate these breaks. There doesn't have to be a player rubbing their hands and trying to find a loophole to exploit, those people are going to be doing that better without a Forum to make their arguments less founded. Instead, we are more likely to see the people they have swindled coming in here and trying to find out how the 'that ******* guy' managed to exploit the system and ways to prevent them from doing so in the future.

Personally, I just like pointing and laughing at these broken situations as evident by the fact I yelled 'Tanks can climb Ladders' over and over like a madman when I found that break in 6th Edition.

There's no rule against being stupid. There are rules against calling people stupid. I always thought that was stupid.

 insaniak wrote:

So technically if the base obscures enough of the target, it will in fact get a cover save.

And, since flight stands are clear, they cannot provide cover. Unless you paint it, but that would be painting for an advantage.

-Matt

VanHallan wrote:
I really think anybody who spent more than 1 second to think about this should be lobotomized. Who in their right mind would ask such a ridiculous question?

It has come up in several games. I have never argued in favor of flight stands giving a cover save, but sometimes my opponents have. I was asking the question not because I didn't know the answer, but rather I was hoping someone would cite a specific page / rule that puts this to rest, like this:

Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the bases of their models are always ignored from the point of view of determining cover. You cannot take your cover with you!

Also, don't be a dick.

imo the plastic see through stand for the flyer is just a stand. not even part of the base per say and it most certainly isn't part of the model. But for giggles i found this entry in the ru book sorta noteworthy. pg15 last sentence before Own Unit "You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the window of ruined buildings,catch a glimpse of a mode's legs under tree branches and see that high vantage points become very useful for the increased line of sight that they offer."

Namely the through the window of ruined buildings part. This could give us a small amount of wiggle room that allows being able to see through transparent objects counts as line of sight?

not entirely sure how i feel about it but i think that the flyer stand calls into the category of "nothing". Like someone's cup on the table or cheeseburger. it isn't "part of the game".

First of all, with this question, YMDC has hit a new low.

Secondly - gain cover from a transparent "thing"?

If anyone seriously claims to get cover from a flight stand, I'd kick that person out of the room personally.

Is firing through a flight stand (assuming non vehicle) not firing through a unit?

rigeld2 wrote:
Is firing through a flight stand (assuming non vehicle) not firing through a unit?

Flyers do not obstruct fire the way a ground based unit would.

Please remember that not all models on flight stands are vehicles. Some are FMCs.

Now, please answer the question - Is firing through a flight stand (assuming non vehicle) not firing through a unit?

rigeld2 wrote:


Now, please answer the question - Is firing through a flight stand (assuming non vehicle) not firing through a unit?

Cover saves for intervening units can only be granted if at least 1 model of said unit blocks the LoS of the firing unit. A flyer should never block any model's LoS due to it being way higher than most models. There are some where it might be possible, or maybe if there's huge terrain on the table one of your units is on, but in most cases, a flyer will not block LoS.

It's different with FMC as they are closer to the ground and might therefore block LoS.

tl;dr: Only the model can block LoS and thus grant cover saves.

Not sure.. Why would that matter?

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:


Now, please answer the question - Is firing through a flight stand (assuming non vehicle) not firing through a unit?

Cover saves for intervening units can only be granted if at least 1 model of said unit blocks the LoS of the firing unit. A flyer should never block any model's LoS due to it being way higher than most models. There are some where it might be possible, or maybe if there's huge terrain on the table one of your units is on, but in most cases, a flyer will not block LoS.

Simply not true. You can be obscured by firing through a unit, even if the target isn't obscured.

Flight stand isn't part of the model. Unless you want to claim that seeing the flight stand is enough to fire at a flyer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Simply not true. You can be obscured by firing through a unit, even if the target isn't obscured.

I'm referring to p. 37-ish for cover saves by intervening models. You are referring to...?

I assume that you're talking about the "gaps between models of the intervening unit" part?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Flight stand isn't part of the model. Unless you want to claim that seeing the flight stand is enough to fire at a flyer.

The rules require seeing the legs, arms, body of your target. Is the flight stand one of those? Pretty sure it's not.

rigeld2 wrote:

Simply not true. You can be obscured by firing through a unit, even if the target isn't obscured.

I'm referring to p. 37-ish for cover saves by intervening models. You are...?

Same place (I assume - ebook page numbers are different).
Does your copy not say

“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.”

?

If not, your copy might be defective. You should check.

So you're saying that the flying stand is a gap between two models in an intervening unit?

There's a termagant holding an objective. You can only see it through the legs of a Tervigon, but you can see the entire model. Does it get a cover save?