Switch Theme:

Vehicles and cover saves in ruins  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Hey so this came up today and sadly caused the game to be called off.

The scenario is that a rhino is inside a ruin and is being shot at by a leman Russ executioner. From the view of the Leman Russ the rhino is clearly visible and is not obstructed. However the person whom I was playing with claimed a cover save of 3+ due to night fighting and being in a ruin. To my knowledge you must be obscured to claim a cover save if you are a vehicle or MC. His argument is that it was area terrain. I couldn't find a reference to that in the rule book or FAQs.

 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




Ankh Morpork

From memory there's a paragraph called "Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets" which states vehicles cannot claim cover simply for being inside terrain such as Ruins, and must be at least 25% obscured.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Mr. Shine wrote:
From memory there's a paragraph called "Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets" which states vehicles cannot claim cover simply for being inside terrain such as Ruins, and must be at least 25% obscured.


See that's where I came from. However I remember the draft FAQs said you got a cover for just being in cover. On the same note though I recall that it was further changed to in the actual FAQ. He did mention area terrain though so I am left wondering what that even means.

 
   
Made in us
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar




Vehicles and Cover – Obscured Targets

• At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover.

• Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut






Note that it was GCs, not MCs, who work similar to vehicles in being required to being 25% obscured to benefit.

   
Made in gb
Lethal Lhamean




Birmingham

 Stephanius wrote:
Note that it was GCs, not MCs, who work similar to vehicles in being required to being 25% obscured to benefit.

Actually when the FAQ was finalised they extended that to MC's as well.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Imateria wrote:
 Stephanius wrote:
Note that it was GCs, not MCs, who work similar to vehicles in being required to being 25% obscured to benefit.

Actually when the FAQ was finalised they extended that to MC's as well.


Thank you, I missed that one!

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Golden Throne

Theres even a picture in the rule book. Vehicles and cover...
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Byte wrote:
Theres even a picture in the rule book. Vehicles and cover...


Yes. The problem is that that picture's explanation doesn't match the RAW. Considering that the box is apparently meant to illustrate the RAW, that is a bit unhelpful.

Here is what is wrong with it - they forgot to include that the 4+ comes from being IN the ruins and thereby mislead people into assuming that you get 4+ just by being obscured by ruins.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




SC

It sounds like he was trying to claim the area terrain cover save with night fighting for a 3+ cover save. Vehicles don't benefit from area terrain unless covered 25%, like the rulebook example linked above.

That's how I'd play it. Shame you couldn't finish the game over it.

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Illinois

By strict ruling as the others have said, check how much is obscured and go with that.

However, it is always important to go over terrain and how it functions in every game.

I have a friend whom I've been playing with since 2nd edition. To this day, before we start any game, we both clarify what each piece of terrain represents and grants.

And remember rule zero. Play to have fun. Simply make sure that everyone knows what everything does. And even if its not exactly how the rule book goes, for the sake of keeping things smooth and light hearted (unless in tournament of course) try playing things more loosely. Like say; "Okay area terrain this game will grant X cover saves to vehicles and so does all other area terrain on the board. Next game, lets go over what is what before we deploy."

8th Overhaul!
Over 18,000 SM
Over 7000 Tyranids
About 3000 Genestealer cult
About 6000 IG
About 2500 Chaos
About 5000 Skitarii/Admech *Current focus
About 3000 Deamons
2 Imperial Knigts... Soon to be a third

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Two parts

Night fighting +1 cover save

Ruin from terrain section of faq
Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods ruin craters etc) provide a cover save even if you are not 25% obscured does this really incluse large models like monstrous creatures?

A: no just like vehicles monstrous creatures are not obscures simply for being in terrain

So if it was in a ruin and not obscured it's explicitly a 6+ for night fighting only. Note that if you read the Base rulebook only your opponent was correct and that's how it used to work pre faq but this is different now. Also I'd it was obscured in the ruin it would still benefit from the 3+

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/24 07:42:43


 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




Ankh Morpork

U02dah4 wrote:
Two parts

Night fighting +1 cover save

Ruin from terrain section of faq
Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods ruin craters etc) provide a cover save even if you are not 25% obscured does this really incluse large models like monstrous creatures?

A: no just like vehicles monstrous creatures are not obscures simply for being in terrain

So if it was in a ruin and not obscured it's explicitly a 6+ for night fighting only. Note that if you read the Base rulebook only your opponent was correct and that's how it used to work pre faq but this is different now. Also I'd it was obscured in the ruin it would still benefit from the 3+


Prior to the FAQ the OP's opponent was still incorrect because the rulebook tells us, as has been pointed out and even quoted above by Ceann (and again now, by me) "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

No under the previous faq rules the advanced rule on the dataset for the ruin would take precedence granting a 3+ because it applies to "all models" which overrides the basic rule on vehicles and cover because advanced overrides basic (which goes back to old raw 3+ old Rai 6+ argument which is why they needed to faq in the first place)

please don't argue about basic vs advanced rules as it will summon cienne the troll

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/24 08:17:42


 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




Ankh Morpork

U02dah4 wrote:
No under the previous faq rules the advanced rule on the dataset for the ruin would take precedence granting a 3+ because it applies to "all models" which overrides the basic rule on vehicles and cover because advanced overrides basic (which goes back to old raw 3+ old Rai 6+ argument which is why they needed to faq in the first place)

please don't argue about basic vs advanced rules as it will summon cienne the troll


Ruins don't have a datasheet, and no one is arguing about basic versus advanced rules except you.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Strictly speaking I suppose it's a terrain type either way the rules for ruins are advanced and therefore overrule basic same argument as before

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/24 08:32:02


 
   
Made in nz
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




Ankh Morpork

U02dah4 wrote:
Strictly speaking I suppose it's a terrain type either way the rules for ruins are advanced and therefore overrule basic same argument as before


It has been established elsewhere that vehicle rules are also advanced. Irrespective of that, the vehicle rules also clearly tell us that normal rules for being 'in terrain' do not apply and that needing to be at least 25% obscured takes precedence.
   
Made in us
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar




U02dah4 wrote:
No under the previous faq rules the advanced rule on the dataset for the ruin would take precedence granting a 3+ because it applies to "all models" which overrides the basic rule on vehicles and cover because advanced overrides basic (which goes back to old raw 3+ old Rai 6+ argument which is why they needed to faq in the first place)

please don't argue about basic vs advanced rules as it will summon cienne the troll


Don't know when to quit do you?

Cover is a shooting rule.
It is a basic rule.

If you have a hard time understanding basic vs advanced, that isn't my problem, you call me a troll but that is because you only think you understand the rules, which you don't.
But by all means, continue to be snobbish about it if you must, ignorance is bliss after all.

Want an example? If everything outside of core rules is advanced, then Lascannon vs Terminator armor.... if both were advanced you could claim the AP 2 supersedes the armor save, and you could also claim the 2+ save on the gear supersedes the Lascannon's AP 2, so yes, the game destroys itself.

That aside...
-------

There is a difference between being IN the terrain and being obscured by the terrain.
And if you are in the terrain you must be 25% covered to count as being in the terrain, you cannot just stick your foot in it, like infantry.
If you shoot at my vehicle that is 25% obscured by a ruin, as in line of sight, you will get a different value than if you are IN the ruin and 25% covered.
The 25% coverage is also on a per side basis, for a vehicle you can technically just use enfilade fire to circumvent its save in these situations.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/24 15:52:28


 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

Ceann wrote:

There is a difference between being IN the terrain and being obscured by the terrain.
And if you are in the terrain you must be 25% covered to count as being in the terrain, you cannot just stick your foot in it, like infantry.
If you shoot at my vehicle that is 25% obscured by a ruin, as in line of sight, you will get a different value than if you are IN the ruin and 25% covered.
The 25% coverage is also on a per side basis, for a vehicle you can technically just use enfilade fire to circumvent its save in these situations.


This is right.

I had this come up in a game recently. My opponent was trying to tell me that I got a 5+ cover save on my Rhino which was on the base level inside a building, and more than 25% obscured. But, I was in the ruins, so it was improved to 4+.

One scenario that also came up, was that he could see more than 25% of a rhino, however based on his position he had to shoot at the front armor, which was totally obscured by being pressed against an armoured container. In this case he was saying it's still a 5+ cover save. While that might technically be true, and I ultimately acquiesced to the argument, it didn't seem right. He literally could not see the face of the rhino he was required to shoot at. In my opinion, and how i've seen miniwargaming play this, is a 3+ cover save.

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar




You have to be able to see it from the direction of fire. There is no "roof" armor, except in the case of some blasts. If you can't see the facing I would say you can't shoot at it.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Noooo I spoke the name of the troll I summoned him

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/24 18:36:49


 
   
Made in nz
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




Ankh Morpork

Ceann wrote:
You have to be able to see it from the direction of fire. There is no "roof" armor, except in the case of some blasts. If you can't see the facing I would say you can't shoot at it.


This is covered in the vehicles and cover rules, at or towards the end. You may fire against the facing you can see, but the vehicle gets to count its cover save as being one better than that provided by the cover fully obscuring the facing the firer is in.

If you can see the roof of a vehicle I don't see why you wouldn't divide it into facings as normal.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

Ceann wrote:
You have to be able to see it from the direction of fire. There is no "roof" armor, except in the case of some blasts. If you can't see the facing I would say you can't shoot at it.

Actually you can shoot a Vehicle if you cannot see the Facing the Shooter is in. If all you see is the side of the Rhino, but you are in the front facing, you can shoot the side armor, but it "receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing." - BRV, Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar




 Charistoph wrote:
Ceann wrote:
You have to be able to see it from the direction of fire. There is no "roof" armor, except in the case of some blasts. If you can't see the facing I would say you can't shoot at it.

Actually you can shoot a Vehicle if you cannot see the Facing the Shooter is in. If all you see is the side of the Rhino, but you are in the front facing, you can shoot the side armor, but it "receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing." - BRV, Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets.



... if you cannot see the Facing...
... If all you see is the side of the Rhino...

So clearly you are still not shooting the facing you can't see, you are shooting a different one.
So as I said, if can't see a facing, you can't shoot at it. You took this to mean that I was stating you couldn't shoot at the vehicle at all, which is your mistake.
Clearly you can still shoot at a facing that you can see.

You see in the sentence "the facing" is the subject..."shoot" is the verb, so when we say "it" we are talking about the subject, which is the facing, not the vehicle.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/24 19:01:14


 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

Ceann wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
Ceann wrote:
You have to be able to see it from the direction of fire. There is no "roof" armor, except in the case of some blasts. If you can't see the facing I would say you can't shoot at it.

Actually you can shoot a Vehicle if you cannot see the Facing the Shooter is in. If all you see is the side of the Rhino, but you are in the front facing, you can shoot the side armor, but it "receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing." - BRV, Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets.

... if you cannot see the Facing...
... If all you see is the side of the Rhino...

So clearly you are still not shooting the facing you can't see, you are shooting a different one.
So as I said, if can't see a facing, you can't shoot at it. You took this to mean that I was stating you couldn't shoot at the vehicle at all, which is your mistake.
Clearly you can still shoot at a facing that you can see.

You see in the sentence "the facing" is the subject..."shoot" is the verb, so when we say "it" we are talking about the subject, which is the facing, not the vehicle.

And was anything I stated wrong?

If you are shooting at the roof, it is the roof of one of the 4 Facings of the Vehicle. It is still one of the F, S, or R Facings, and that is what you use.

In addition, a model can potentially see 4 Facings, but only be able to shoot 1 of them. Because normally you only shoot the Facing you are in.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar




Yes, what you said was wrong.

Because you quoted me, implying I was saying that if you couldn't see a facing, you shouldn't shoot the vehicle, which is empirically false, because that isn't what I said.

I said "roof" in regards to artillery fire, vehicles do not technically have a "top" you use the corresponding facing unless you are told to use a particular facing.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





To be fair, when you say "you can't shoot at it", it sounds like you're saying that you can't shoot at the vehicle, not merely saying you can't shoot at that facing. You didn't specify shooting a different facing in your earlier post to make that clear.
   
Made in nz
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




Ankh Morpork

 doctortom wrote:
To be fair, when you say "you can't shoot at it", it sounds like you're saying that you can't shoot at the vehicle, not merely saying you can't shoot at that facing. You didn't specify shooting a different facing in your earlier post to make that clear.


This.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

Ceann wrote:
Yes, what you said was wrong.

Because you quoted me, implying I was saying that if you couldn't see a facing, you shouldn't shoot the vehicle, which is empirically false, because that isn't what I said.

I said "roof" in regards to artillery fire, vehicles do not technically have a "top" you use the corresponding facing unless you are told to use a particular facing.

So was what I said wrong, or the implication of what I said was wrong?

If what I said was wrong, please provide what is wrong about what I said.

If it was implied, I cannot control what you get out of what I write any more than either of us can control what col_ignored gets out of what we write.

And as DoctorTom said, I took the "you can't shoot at it" to mean the Vehicle and not the Facing.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

 Charistoph wrote:
Ceann wrote:
You have to be able to see it from the direction of fire. There is no "roof" armor, except in the case of some blasts. If you can't see the facing I would say you can't shoot at it.

Actually you can shoot a Vehicle if you cannot see the Facing the Shooter is in. If all you see is the side of the Rhino, but you are in the front facing, you can shoot the side armor, but it "receives a cover save one point better than that given by the cover obscuring the vehicle’s other facing." - BRV, Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets.


Thanks, this is what I said, but unfortunately my iPad was dead and i couldn't reference my rules, and my opponent didn't have a book with him.

It was a friendly game and I didn't mind rolling 5+ instead of 3+. Thank you though for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you don't get to pick which facing you fire against... Just because you can see side armor doesn't mean you shoot at side armor. The armor you shoot at is dictated by the arcs as pictured in the rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/24 22:06:36


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: