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.

So the new FAQs changed the rules for forests and ruins to this (emphasis mine):

Page 248 – Woods
Change the last sentence of the first paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Other units only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model.’

Page 248 – Ruins
Change the third paragraph of rules text to read: ‘Infantry units that are on a ruin receive the benefit of cover. Other units only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model.’

So given that they changed the wording from 'shooting unit' to 'shooting model', I'm genuinely confused on how we're supposed to play this with non-infantry units in ruins/forests.

Because as it read before they changed it via the errata, it was pretty clear that every model in the forest/ruin had to be at least 50% obscured from every model in the firing unit...if any of the models in the ruin/forest didn't meet that criteria, the whole unit wasn't getting the benefit of cover.

But now that it says 'shooting model', it seems like you have to go through each model in your shooting unit and check to see if the enemy unit gets the benefit of cover against them (if all the models in the ruin/forest are obscured by 50%). And of course the only way to resolve this sort of thing properly would be to keep the shots that don't benefit from cover separate from those that do benefit from cover.

And the issue with THAT process is playing that way goes against the rules for 'fast dice rolling' (you're supposed to be able to roll your 'hit' and 'wound' rolls together if the weapons have the same characteristics...no mention of having to keep attacks that do/don't benefit from cover separate.

So what do you think? Why was the wording on these rules changed if not to create the situation I describe here at the end (with some shots benefiting from cover and others not)?

To answer your last question, on why the wording was changed, I think it was probably because they were stuck on the idea of how vehicles get cover. Since vehicles are nearly always a single model unit, that thinking could have carried over into the wording change.

Doesn't help with the consequences of the wording change, and I could be entirely wrong and they meant exactly what they said. I just know a lot of the cover questions were in regards to vehicles and such, so that's what I think it could have affected their thinking.

I'd just houserule that if it looks like they're in cover, they're probably in cover.

Sometimes it's best to not overthink GW's fethtarded writing skills.

Simple answer if you are not infantry. You most likely don't have cover.

I think you are reading too much into the Battlefield Terran rule. The biggest distinction for Woods and Ruins is this: Is the unit in question Infantry?

Infantry: If the entire unit, all the models, are entirely on the base of the Woods or Ruins, then they get cover. No LoS obscurement required.

Everything Else: At least 50% of the model must be obscured to the firing model to claim cover.

What is Infantry? Look at the keywords of the unit.

Something important to note is that even if you are 50% obscured from the firer, you won't get the cover bonus unless you are actually on or within the terrain. Which doesn't make sense to me and I have a hard time wrapping my head around it, especially from a narrative point of view. If I can see just the head of an enemy though 47 ruins, he won't benefit from cover unless he's actually inside it? I understand that it's to speed up the game but if you already have to get down to check LOS anyway, it's pretty easy to determine if they are in cover...

Unless I'm wrong. Which is okay too

EDIT: Here's the bit from the FAQ:

Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).

 anticitizen013 wrote:
Something important to note is that even if you are 50% obscured from the firer, you won't get the cover bonus unless you are actually on or within the terrain. Which doesn't make sense to me and I have a hard time wrapping my head around it, especially from a narrative point of view.

It helps to think that the cover rule is granted by the terrain itself, and not by any LoS issues. If you are inside the terrain, the rules apply to you and you get the modifier. If you are not inside the terrain, you don't.

A model shoots a Plasma Cannon, it applies a modifier. A model shooting through a model with a Plasma Cannon doesn't get the Plasma Cannon modifier.
A model embarked inside a transport can't be targeted, but having a transport between the shooter and the target doesn't cause the targeted unit to be treated as being embarked.
A model inside terrain gets the being inside terrain modifier, having terrain between two models doesn't cause the modifier to be applied.

Just get in the mindset that "how does it look" doesn't matter, and that "physical location of the model on terrain" is what matters.

 Tamwulf wrote:
I think you are reading too much into the Battlefield Terran rule. The biggest distinction for Woods and Ruins is this: Is the unit in question Infantry?

Infantry: If the entire unit, all the models, are entirely on the base of the Woods or Ruins, then they get cover. No LoS obscurement required.

Everything Else: At least 50% of the model must be obscured to the firing model to claim cover.

What is Infantry? Look at the keywords of the unit.

This isn't a question of if the models are in the woods/ruins. They are. Here's the example situation:

A unit of 10 Ork Warbikers are inside a forest. 10 Space Marines shoot at them. From the point of view of 5 Space Marines, all 10 Warbikers are at least 50% obscured by the trees, but for the other 5 Space Marines, they can see at least one Warbiker that is not obscured by at least 50%.

Do the Warbikers get the benefit of cover in this situation against 5 of the Space Marines but not from the other 5?

 yakface wrote:

So what do you think? Why was the wording on these rules changed if not to create the situation I describe here at the end (with some shots benefiting from cover and others not)?

The scenario that I conceive reading this change is this:

A daisy-chain squad of marines is shooting at a target in cover, but the Lascannon marine, at the end of the chain, can only see the targets in full cover.

With the old wording, I could claim that the rest of the Unit can see targets that are not in cover.
Now because the Lascannon marine is in the Unit, the enemy would not get cover.

Change the wording to the current ruleset, and suddenly it is very clear that the target can take saves against the Lascannon shots, even if it might not be able to against the Bolter-marines.

The way it reads you'd have to roll the two sets of marine shots separately.

I guess it does not promote fast dice but thats how it reads... perhaps just use different coloured dice. The rules do specifically note they are based on a one shot at a time method even though no one in their right mind could play a game like this.

Gets a bit weirder what if you roll your two sets of dice at once and then the enemy decides to roll for models in cover first one by one but then decides to remove models that were not in cover thus making one of the marines that could see a model more than 50% only now see covered models XD which of his attacks now gets converted to an incover save?!

probably best to ask you opponent to take the saves of non-covered models first to mitigate this oddness.

The entire cover system in this edition is prob for me the biggest let down.

The way we are playing it is judgement based and we're ignoring having to be 'on the terrain' if a wall blocks 50% of los to your rhino between me and you it seems reasonable to get a save... this isnt the RAW way to play 40k so meh a houserule i guess. Not sure why this wouldent of worked and been simple:

'Infantry gain a cover save if terrain partially blocks LoS to an enemy shooter or the infantry are on a terrain piece. In all other instances if the model is 50% obscured from the firing model they gain a cover save'

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
Simple answer if you are not infantry. You most likely don't have cover.

This pretty much sums it up.

I need pictures. Cover in 8e is a mess.

 anticitizen013 wrote:
Something important to note is that even if you are 50% obscured from the firer, you won't get the cover bonus unless you are actually on or within the terrain. Which doesn't make sense to me and I have a hard time wrapping my head around it, especially from a narrative point of view. If I can see just the head of an enemy though 47 ruins, he won't benefit from cover unless he's actually inside it? I understand that it's to speed up the game but if you already have to get down to check LOS anyway, it's pretty easy to determine if they are in cover...

Unless I'm wrong. Which is okay too

Exactly what i think too.
You are not wrong.

IMO the cover rules in this edition are totally garbage and make zero sense.
I will definetly housrule this.

Also, you are in cover as long as you touch it a little.

So a vehicle that is barely touching a ruin and it is 50% obscured gets a save, but one that is 99% obscured but not on contact with area cover gets none.

Seizeman wrote:
Also, you are in cover as long as you touch it a little.

So a vehicle that is barely touching a ruin and it is 50% obscured gets a save, but one that is 99% obscured but not on contact with area cover gets none.

Yep!

Shooting completely through a multi story ruin terrain feature is more effective than shooting into it.

That's so cool!

Bonus question: Rules like the one below (last line of Titanic Daemon Engine) state that they get cover if they are 50% obscured. Doesn't say any other requirements to be on/within a terrain feature. Thoughts?

 anticitizen013 wrote:
Bonus question: Rules like the one below (last line of Titanic Daemon Engine) state that they get cover if they are 50% obscured. Doesn't say any other requirements to be on/within a terrain feature. Thoughts?

That just means the unit never auto-benefits from cover just for standing on terrain, even when playing with just the basic rules for terrain (where everything gets cover for just standing on terrain). Nothing in that rule says the model always benefits from cover anytime it is 50% obscured.

Indeed. "In cover" means it needs to satisfy other elements of getting cover, such as being in area terrain, not that it gets a 7th ed save wherever it is.

One way to clear up part of the issue would be to say LoS never passes through any type of terrain model,it only goes into a terrain model.

Yeah I suppose that was a bad example. It totally says "in cover". Hah!

I think they used the wrong terminology. Also, they seem really keen on Things Bigger Than Terminators never ever getting cover.

Which, unless you have terrain with a REALLY large base and large, wide structures, seems to be what we're playing with effectively.

personally don't get why infantry and non-infantry are treated differently for cover in general.

given cover doesn't change the To hit or To Wound rolls just the saves, and units shoot at units, it seems pretty simple to me.

If the model concerned is at least 50% obscured from all firing units armed with the weapon in question, it gets cover, otherwise no - area terrain should grant cover on a unit type by unit type basis

I'm guessing they wanted to represent two things:

- Terrain helps your cover save because it's an additional barrier for a weapon to penetrate in addition to whatever armor you already have.
- Infantry can make better use of the available cover by going to ground, laying flat in a crater while shooting you, and ducking behind that pile of rubble. Monsters and vehicles can't, and if you can see most of it you are not likely to shoot through the wall/tree/whatever to hit it.

Anything more makes the rules more complicated. You could add "gone to ground" rules for infantry, you could say that a forest should be +1 and a concrete bunker +3, and many more, but any rule creates more arguing IMO.

You guys seem to have lost the point of this thread.

The question is now, after the FAQ change: how do you actually determine whether a non-infantry unit is obscured when you have multiple firing models?

Is cover determined separately for each firing model as the FAQ seems to suggest, even though playing this way would screw up the 'fast dice rolling' rules as well as go against their other FAQ ruling which said that models could start getting cover halfway through casualty removal (when the models out of cover get removed).

Or does cover for non-infantry only happen when they are at least 50% obscured from the ENTIRE firing unit, regardless of the fact that it seems to go against what the rules, post-FAQ, say?

Let's add this in from the FAQ as well:

Page 249 – Barricades
Change the first sentence of rules text to read:
‘When a model targets an enemy Infantry unit that has all of its models within 1" of a barricade....'

This suggests that models, in addition to units, target enemies. This makes sense because models make attacks, and Step 2 of the Shooting Phase says that attacks go against the target, and that "in order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit...must be visible to the shooting model."


And also found this one, changing "models" in the original to "units" in the update, which seems to go against the OP example.

Page 250 – Imperial Statuary
Change the first paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Units within 3" of Imperial Statuary that are at least 25% obscured....