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 the target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit it receives a 5+ cover save" "This does not apply if the shots go over the unit, because the firer has an elevated position"

My question is, if a tall model (such as a Riptide or Wraithknight) which is on the same flat piece of land as a normal friendly intervening model (such as a Firewarrior or guardian) and an enemy space marine for example, decides to shoot at said space marine would the space marine get a cover save?

Depending on how picky you are with the rules you could argue either way.

I'd say if the head of the tall model can see from toe to head of the enemy its not obscured however some people would argue that the fact there is a model between them means they get a cover save no matter what.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and reasoning.

Thanks

It's simple, if ANY part of the firer can see ALL of the target. There is no cover save (Wraithknight looking over an intervening unit). If the ANY part of the target is obscured, no matter what point of the firer you choose to measure LOS, then the unit does get a cover save (that same unit firing back, given that the interfening unit blocks being able to see the WK's base which is indeed part of the model.)

So to be clear, if any part of the firer can't a see a part of the target because of an intervening model they get a cover save.

So for example if the Tall models left foot can't draw an unobstructed line to the targets right foot because of an intervening model that target would get a 5+ even though the weapon isn't mounted on the foot.

Am I also right in saying an intervening model is different to terrain which requires 25% coverage to provide a cover save?

Thinking about it using your logic where would you draw the 25% from? I'm assuming not the foot?

Not quite right... the illustration on this page (discussing the same thing) makes it clearer.

In order to deny the target a cover save, you only need one point on the firer that can draw an unobstructed line to all points on the target. (note: firing between models in the intervening unit counts as an obstruction as well)

On the other hand if when looking from the highest point of the shooting model you still cannot see said left foot (because the intervening models are too tall), then the target gets a cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forgot the link:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/614650.page

Taffy17 wrote:
So to be clear, if any part of the firer can't a see a part of the target because of an intervening model they get a cover save.

So for example if the Tall models left foot can't draw an unobstructed line to the targets right foot because of an intervening model that target would get a 5+ even though the weapon isn't mounted on the foot.

No, that is not how it works.

The firing model picks a point on its body to draw line of sight with. then you determine Line of Sight from that point.

Am I also right in saying an intervening model is different to terrain which requires 25% coverage to provide a cover save?

Thinking about it using your logic where would you draw the 25% from? I'm assuming not the foot?

Intervening models are not terrain.

if the shots go through the gaps in a unit then the target gets a cover save.

chanceafs wrote:
It's simple, if ANY part of the firer can see ALL of the target. There is no cover save (Wraithknight looking over an intervening unit).

Agreed.

If the ANY part of the target is obscured, no matter what point of the firer you choose to measure LOS, then the unit does get a cover save

Disagree. Intervening models work "the same way as being behind terrain". Terrain requires you to be in cover *and* be obscured 25%.

(that same unit firing back, given that the interfening unit blocks being able to see the WK's base which is indeed part of the model.)

The base does not count for determining LoS.

It really would be nice if we had a way to draw the 'trajectory of the shot....'

Still liking the theory that the Written Rule only grants permission to ignore the Intervening Model Rule if the model is elevated or using a barrage weapon. It has a huge flaw, there is no Rules telling us how to determine if the Model is elevated and the methods we derive can easily be exploited, but it is exactly as the Rule was Written. Then any line of sight which meets the definition of going through a gap between models or being 'partially obstructed' by one would trigger this Rule, assuming they are not 'elevated.'

coredump wrote:

Intervening models work "the same way as being behind terrain". Terrain requires you to be in cover *and* be obscured 25%.

This is true, as long as you are not firing through any gaps in between models. For example, if only a single model is blocking your LoS to the target, then yes, that model must obscure the target 25%. However, if you are shooting in between gaps in models, then the 25% obscured requirement goes out the window.

Rules:

If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third 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. 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, either because the firer has
an elevated position or is firing a Barrage weapon, rather than through it.

(that same unit firing back, given that the interfening unit blocks being able to see the WK's base which is indeed part of the model.)

The base does not count for determining LoS.

Murrdox,
I ask it ever time because it really is a puzzle to me... If 25% or more is obscured, what would partially obscured be?

JinxDragon wrote:
Murrdox,
I ask it ever time because it really is a puzzle to me... If 25% or more is obscured, what would partially obscured be?

The game uses the word "obscured' in a couple of different ways. Think of one of them with a captial letter and one without.

Obscured - An "Obscured" model is eligible for a cover save. If it's a vehicle that has launched smoke or is behind sufficient cover to grant it a cover save is referred to as "Obscured".

obscured - The percentage of a model that is hidden behind terrain or intervening models. For example, "The building is only obscuring my Wraithknight by about 10%, so I don't get a cover save."

Looked at in this way you can see how the following sentence works. "My Wraithknight is partially obscured by about 33% by the Wave Serpent in front of him, so he's Obscured and I get a cover save from your lascannons."

Murrdox wrote:

This is true, as long as you are not firing through any gaps in between models. For example, if only a single model is blocking your LoS to the target, then yes, that model must obscure the target 25%. However, if you are shooting in between gaps in models, then the 25% obscured requirement goes out the window.

No it does not. Being "in cover" is *not the same* as granting a cover save. If a model is 10% obscured by a hill, it is "in cover", but it does not get a cover save.

To get a cover save from terrain, a model needs to be 'in cover', *and* be 25% obscured.
Intervening models grant a cover save "in the same way as being behind terrain"


Further, by your logic, if there were a big blob of 20 gaunts in front of a Trygon, (so there are no gaps to see through), there would be no cover save. But if you spread those gaunts out.... that would grant a cover save..... huh??

The space between the models provides cover, if that is enough to grant 25%... then you get a cover save. (The same way as behind terrain.)






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Murrdox wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Murrdox,
I ask it ever time because it really is a puzzle to me... If 25% or more is obscured, what would partially obscured be?

The game uses the word "obscured' in a couple of different ways. Think of one of them with a captial letter and one without.

Obscured - An "Obscured" model is eligible for a cover save. If it's a vehicle that has launched smoke or is behind sufficient cover to grant it a cover save is referred to as "Obscured".

obscured - The percentage of a model that is hidden behind terrain or intervening models. For example, "The building is only obscuring my Wraithknight by about 10%, so I don't get a cover save."

Looked at in this way you can see how the following sentence works. "My Wraithknight is partially obscured by about 33% by the Wave Serpent in front of him, so he's Obscured and I get a cover save from your lascannons."

Um, do you have a rule quote to back that up? Because otherwise it seems like a pretty selective way to get the rules to 'mean' whatever you want them to say.

So in the case of tall models such as a Wraithknight do you decide whether the model is obscured or shooting though or between friendly's by drawing line of sight from the feet, the weapon or the head? or somewhere else?

Murrdox,
It would be nice if they capitalized terminology like we do here, cause without that we have no way to determine which is which... a headache for those like I which believe 'Terminology' exists.
I might just start stating that 'partially obstructed' is meaningless from a Rule as Written perspective, because the Rules only define how to determine if something is Obscured, and require the 'the same way as if behind terrain' be obeyed to the 25% obscured letter as well.

Taffy17 wrote:
So in the case of tall models such as a Wraithknight do you decide whether the model is obscured or shooting though or between friendly's by drawing line of sight from the feet, the weapon or the head? or somewhere else?

Oddly enough, you can't use the weapon. The Firing player decides on part of the body, and determinations are made from there.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
the Rules only define how to determine if something is Obscured,

Where are you finding this definition? I have looked and can't find it.

Coredump,
Like all terminologies, thanks to the Writers lack of a glossary, deduction from other Rules.

Obscured, just the word obscured, is used in several other Rules in direct relation to the process used to determine if something is granted a Cover Save. These are not Rule informing us that the Model gains a Cover Save for being 25% or more obscured, they are just Rules simply referring to a Model as "obscured." Common uses include '..If the Target is Obscured...' , ...but counts as obscured... , ...it is obscured..., ... are not obscured simply... and more. So if this is not Terminology informing us to refer to the original Rule informing us what Cover Saves something gets if it is 25% or more Obscured, then we might encounter a few problems determining what the Authors want us to do in some situations. Some of these Rules are modifying Cover Saves or do something else when they encounter a model which is Obscured, while others are meaningless without referring back to the original 25% obscured Rule.

Curious side note:
This is one of the things which shows there where multiple Authors writing this book, in some sections it appears the Terminology is just 'Obscured' while in others they refer to '25% Obscured.'
I like 25% obscured much better.

JinxDragon wrote:
Coredump,
Like all terminologies, thanks to the Writers lack of a glossary, deduction from other Rules.

Obscured, just the word obscured, is used in several other Rules in direct relation to the process used to determine if something is granted a Cover Save. These are not Rule informing us that the Model gains a Cover Save for being 25% or more obscured, they are just Rules simply referring to a Model as "obscured." Common uses include '..If the Target is Obscured...' , ...but counts as obscured... , ...it is obscured..., ... are not obscured simply... and more. So if this is not Terminology informing us to refer to the original Rule informing us what Cover Saves something gets if it is 25% or more Obscured, then we might encounter a few problems determining what the Authors want us to do in some situations. Some of these Rules are modifying Cover Saves or do something else when they encounter a model which is Obscured, while others are meaningless without referring back to the original 25% obscured Rule.

I just went and reviewed every use of the word 'obscured' in the BRB... and the problem you assert does not exist. The writers are very consistent (surprisingly so) on the use of obscured. When they refer to an ork being "obscured"... it means at all, it never means nor implies that obscured=25% obscured.

You may be somewhat confused by the vehicle section, since in the vehicle section they *do* define 'obscured=25% obscured'; but they carefully state that this definition is only for vehicles.

So I have to ask again, exactly where are you getting the impression that they ever use the term 'obscured' and assume it means 25% obscured??

Curious side note:
This is one of the things which shows there where multiple Authors writing this book, in some sections it appears the Terminology is just 'Obscured' while in others they refer to '25% Obscured.'
I like 25% obscured much better.

When you review this, please remember that sometimes being obscured at all is enough to grant a cover save (behind ruins), and other times it requires 25% obscured, and other times you don't care about obscurement at all (in crater).

I think you will find the authors have been very consistent. (Granted, I was kinda surprised also.)

A Model has a Rule which states it counts as being Obscured, and this Model is fired upon.

What Cover Save does it get?
What part of the book did you review to get this information?
Why did you feel compelled to look into that part of the book?

What model has that rule?

It makes a difference in the answer.


Meanwhile, could you please answer my question? Where do you see them using 'obscured' to mean '25% obscured' (besides vehicles) You keep saying they do it, but have never given even one actual example.

JinxDragon wrote:
A Model has a Rule which states it counts as being Obscured, and this Model is fired upon.

What Cover Save does it get?
What part of the book did you review to get this information?
Why did you feel compelled to look into that part of the book?

Perhaps you can give the rule in question and not a hypothetical. It would make answering easier.

Just before the Go To Ground section there is this:

"If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model’s body (see General Principles) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, "

So if ten guys shoot and even 1 of them can't see the target 75+%, he gets a cover save. You can have that one not fire at all, but if he does, 5+ all around.


Reinforcement on the 25% thing (which was JUST vehicles in 6th) is seen int he GtG wording as well:
"and receive a 6+ cover save, even if they are not 25% obscured. "

Intervening models:
"If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit "..."it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

The wording immediately after that (I don't want to quote too much) enumerates two RAW condition that allow it to NOT count as obscured if you fire over it. RAW, I think those are the only two conditions. My view is that grots can thus give cover to a stompa - either from the rank odor them emit, rocks they throw or whatever non-wounding behavior that serves as a distraction. It seems a simpler way to handle things and a simpler/more consistent way to interpret the rules.

If one wants to play the grammar game, they specifically enumerate two conditions to allow you to shoot over a model without giving a cover save, but do not use any other verbiage along the lines of "such as" or "for example". Strict reading of that is that those are the ONLY two exceptions. Barrage and other special rules explicitly override that sort of thing, bu there's no RAW basis (that I see) to deny cover saves to the Stompa in behind a few grots. You can always houserules it, or write up a dataslate for terrain, 5+, being behind another unit" and add all sorts of options for what models can get cover from who, as far as I see, it's always 5+.

I was going to leave this one till I returned home and could research it more but there are two points I want considered:
First, the request to completely discard anything found in the Vehicle section of the Rulebook. Given that the nature of the debate was surrounding the word Obstruction, the use of this word in other Rules and how it related to the original 25% Obstruction Rule, a request to disregard any Rule as 'irrelevant' is a little bit premature. While Vehicles do handle certain things different, and many of the Rules I am referencing are in direct relation to addressing those differences, it does not stop them from being Rules which use the format I am describing. Still, if I do feel up to it when I get back to the library I will see about your request for other Rules which use the format being described.

Second, and this is far more important, the counter-argument you have presented violates your original conclusions. As the original conclusion was that a Model Less then 25% obscured does not gain the Cover Save mentioned in Rule using the 'partially obstructed' wording. That sort of makes it vital that a link back to the 25%-obstructed Rule can be presented or else that original conclusion no longer has any Rule as Written support, and 1% obscured is enough to trigger the Cover Save granted. If the word Obstruction is not Terminology informing us to refer to the 25%-obstructed Rule, or some reverent of it as you are being picky over vehicles, then the words 'partially obscured' have even less chance of being Terminology informing us to see if the Model is 25% or more obscured.

Hell, trust me to over look the Rule being discussed is a prime example of the format I was describing....

1) I don't know what I am doing wrong. I write things, and I try and be clear... and people act like I never wrote anything.

Let me literally repeat what I said: " in the vehicle section they *do* define 'obscured=25% obscured'; but they carefully state that this definition is only for vehicles."

So, in the vehicle section, when they use the term "obscured" it *does* mean "25% obscured". But this is unique to referring to vehicles in the vehicle section. So if you find such an instance in the vehicle section, it can *not* be extrapolated for anything but vehicles.

2) I am not being flippant here... but your second paragraph is so convoluted I really have no idea what you are trying to say.
In general, I believe it pertains to my claims and their consistency. So let me list them.

If a model is partially hidden or partially obscured, it is considered 'in cover'
Being 'in cover' is *not* enough to get a cover save.
Being hidden/obscured by at least 25% is enough to grant a cover save
In other words, being 'in cover' by 25% will grant a cover save.

The term 'partially' obscured/hidden applies to everything from .001% to 99.99% obscured.
The term 'obscured' applies to everything from .001% to 100% obscured.

To further this.... Shooting through the gaps of an intervening unit means the target is 'in cover'.
Just as above, being 'in cover' is *not* enough to grant a cover save.
Just as above, if the target unit is 'in cover' by 25%, then a cover save is granted.

Just like the rule states, intervening models grants a unit a cover save "in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

I will focus on the second to make it more clear:
If being told something is 'obstructed' is not instructions to review the Determining Cover Save Rules... then how can partially obstructed be telling us to do the same?
References to being Obstructed, Partially Obstructed, 25% Obstructed all refer back to Determine Cover Saves or a variation of it, so when we see them in the Rule their presence informs us what is going on.

Um, sure... I guess. I have no idea where you are going with this.

If something is obscured, you are free to review the Determining Cover Saves rules.... even if it is partially obscured. Go ahead.

And that section tells you the target unit doesn't get a cover save unless it is at least 25% obscured.

Ok, so going back to the original topic, if a tall unit such as a Wraithknight shoots over/though a friendly Guardian squad at an enemy space marine, for example, would the Space Marine get a cover save for shooting through the guardians?

Taffy17 wrote:
Ok, so going back to the original topic, if a tall unit such as a Wraithknight shoots over/though a friendly Guardian squad at an enemy space marine, for example, would the Space Marine get a cover save for shooting through the guardians?

(I think everyone agrees on this part)
If the WK can see the entire body of all of the marines over the guardians... no cover save.

(This next part is debated)
If the guardians and/or the gaps between guardians put the marines behind 25% cover, then they get a cover save. (Works the "same way as if behind terrain")

coredump wrote:

Taffy17 wrote:
Ok, so going back to the original topic, if a tall unit such as a Wraithknight shoots over/though a friendly Guardian squad at an enemy space marine, for example, would the Space Marine get a cover save for shooting through the guardians?

(I think everyone agrees on this part)
If the WK can see the entire body of all of the marines over the guardians... no cover save.

(This next part is debated)
If the guardians and/or the gaps between guardians put the marines behind 25% cover, then they get a cover save. (Works the "same way as if behind terrain")

My view is a cover save is granted in all of the above conditions. Vehicles aside, If you shoot through another unit, a cover save is granted. There are two enumerated exceptions in the cover rules - being elevated (whatever that mean, presumably for being on a hill but not just for being tall).


My premise for this is this:
"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. "

Emphasis added. As I read it, gaps between models include the bases, so even if you can both see each other 100% you still count as obscured since the model positions are abstract representations of the battle.

Also, the very next paragraph states:
"This is because, in the case of intervening friends, the firer would be afraid of hitting his comrades, while in the case of intervening enemies, the firer is distracted by the more immediate threat. "

So my view is that models at the same elevation (whatever that means) are infinitely tall, but I'd like to see a simple RAW contradiction if any exists.

Agreed there RAWRAIRobbleRobble,
The problem with the Rule stems from informing us that if the "Shot" goes through a gap then a Cover Save is granted, regardless of how much of the Model is visible. This runs counter to the majority of Rules determining how Cover Save are granted, which tend to be based on Line of Sight or simply out-right given by a Special Rule, and leads to situations that players clearly view as 'broken' or 'unintended.' For example, a model is 1% obscured and clearly not liable to grant a Cover save but the gap to the next model ends up obscuring 10% of the Model... cover save or no? Now people have put forth some interesting 'How I will Play It' methods on what to do, such as capping the 'Gap' to 25% obscured as well, but it should always be kept in mind that the resolution is not exactly written in this book. Even the method I choose to use, which has been mentioned here and is actually what some of the people I am arguing against openly support, is nothing more then a House Rule...

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

My premise for this is this:
"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. "

Emphasis added. As I read it, gaps between models include the bases, so even if you can both see each other 100% you still count as obscured since the model positions are abstract representations of the battle.

Could you please supply the rule that states that being 'in cover' is enough to grant a cover save. (as opposed to being 25% in cover)

If behind a short wall, a model can be partially obscured, and thus 'in cover', but if that does not reach the 25% level... there is no cover save granted.

There are two enumerated exceptions in the cover rules - being elevated (whatever that mean, presumably for being on a hill but not just for being tall).

That is not quite true. There is *one* exception listed "this does not apply if the shots go over the unit", then they list two ways that this exception may occur.
Simply 'being elevated' is not enough, nor is barrage... the shots must "go over the unit".




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Agreed there RAWRAIRobbleRobble,
The problem with the Rule stems from informing us that if the "Shot" goes through a gap then a Cover Save is granted,

It *never* says that, it says the target is considered 'in cover'....

This runs counter to the majority of Rules determining how Cover Save are granted, which tend to be based on Line of Sight

The reason you think it 'runs counter' is 1) you are assuming that 'in cover' = 'grant cover save' and 2) you are ignoring the part of the rule that clearly states to treat being behind intervening models "in the same way" as if behind terrain. The rule itself says it is the 'same' and not 'runs counter'.

coredump wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

My premise for this is this:
"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. "

Emphasis added. As I read it, gaps between models include the bases, so even if you can both see each other 100% you still count as obscured since the model positions are abstract representations of the battle.

Could you please supply the rule that states that being 'in cover' is enough to grant a cover save. (as opposed to being 25% in cover)

Sure:

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover." (The Shooting Phase chapter, Cover Saves section).

"If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model’s body (see General Principles) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save"(The Shooting Phase chapter, Determining Cover Saves section).

The rules say that you need to be 25% obscured to gain a cover save, they also say that models that are partially hidden or obscured by terrain is known as being in cover.

This equates being in cover to 25% obscured in the rules.