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.

I keep seeing this mentioned all over the place with people debating constantly over what it actually means. There is one interpretation that seems obvious to me that I have never seen anyone mention.

When they say firing through or over a unit they are not talking about where exactly they are aiming (aiming your gun up at a tall things head and thus "over" the small unit standing in front) but instead the projected path that the weapon type uses. To explain it differently, a mortar round shoots up into the air and then drops down on the target. That fires "over" the intervening unit. A slug thrower shoots strait, through the unit, to attempt to hit the target. A vector striking flying vehicle or mc is more or less dropping bombs on a target. Over. A guy on top of a building. Over. Any time you are basically shooting a strait forward projectile at a target with another unit between you and that target, you are not firing over.

Has nobody else ever read it that way? Am I going crazy?

Isn't it taken from the firing models eye view?
If the model is elavated or something then it could legitimately see over a unit to another - as long as the further away unit is clearly visible (my mind is screaming '25% rule!') then it's a clear line of sight.
that's definetly the case for flyers.

i may be wrong for ground units, i just can't be bothered to get books out right now.

The rules do not support this. You use Line of Sight to determine cover saves, and LOS is straight from the model's eyes/weapon to the target. The exception is Barrage, in which case you simply ignore LOS for cover save purposes. In either case, it doesn't matter if conceptually the weapon would fire "over" the unit as opposed to "through" it.

Yeah, I did say a guy on a roof could fire over. But even a ground unit sitting level with another ground unit firing mortar style rounds should be ignoring that cover. Think biovores. The spore mines drift down. Who cares if your standing in front?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Right but the issue is that an intervening unit both doesn't have to cover 25%. And the models don't even have to be in the way at all. If a unit is in coherency between you and the target the target gets cover. Unless you fire "over" the intervening unit.

 DarkLink wrote:
You use Line of Sight to determine cover saves, and LOS is straight from the model's eyes/weapon to the target. The exception is Barrage, in which case you simply ignore LOS for cover save purposes.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is not true.

The barrage rules tell you to draw Line of Sight from the center of the marker, so if you have a Line of Sight based cover save from the center of the marker then you get a cover save.

Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, I did say a guy on a roof could fire over. But even a ground unit sitting level with another ground unit firing mortar style rounds should be ignoring that cover. Think biovores. The spore mines drift down. Who cares if your standing in front?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Right but the issue is that an intervening unit both doesn't have to cover 25%. And the models don't even have to be in the way at all. If a unit is in coherency between you and the target the target gets cover. Unless you fire "over" the intervening unit.

But that's not how it works. The intervening unit has to cover 25% for vehicles. For other units, LoS is drawn from the model to the enemy. If the other unit interferes in this, then they get a cover save.

 DarkLink wrote:
The rules do not support this. You use Line of Sight to determine cover saves, and LOS is straight from the model's eyes/weapon to the target. The exception is Barrage, in which case you simply ignore LOS for cover save purposes. In either case, it doesn't matter if conceptually the weapon would fire "over" the unit as opposed to "through" it.

Barrage so allows cover saves, it just uses the centre of the marker instead of the firer for LOS.

And for non-vehicle models, LOS in this edition is from any part of the model's body, not just from the eyes.


For the original post, though... No, the rules aren't just talking about mortars and the like. Tall models or models firing at or from elevation will often be shooting over rather than through an intervening unit.

Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, I did say a guy on a roof could fire over. But even a ground unit sitting level with another ground unit firing mortar style rounds should be ignoring that cover. Think biovores. The spore mines drift down. Who cares if your standing in front?

Mortar type weapons are typically Barrage so already don't use cover based on intervening units.

and indirect weapons such as the Biovores you mentioned, and basically any weapon that can fire indirectly and doesn't have the barrage rule have to draw line of sight still because they are saying that the intervening models threw off their aim. Barrage doesn't have to because I believe if the unit is out of LOS the barrage HAS to scatter. saved my orks a few times.