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.

paidinfull wrote:
A model does not gain cover from SMS because of intervening objects, or being obscured, as they have to be touching it if it lies between them and the firer. It's stated right in the SMS entry.

SMS defines what "cover" is in it's wargear description.
You are either IN IT or TOUCHING IT. That's it.

Again these are two interpretations that dont follwo the RaW.

The SMS does not define what cover is. That is defined on p21 of the BGB. It says that a target is in cover if it is obscured from the firer.

It also does not say that the target only gets a cover save if it is or touching cover (which is impossible anyway since "cover" is an abstraction rather than an actual object and you cant touch or be in an abstraction). No where does it say that they must be touching it or in it to gain a save. It says models that are in it or touching it can gain a same, however, the rules cant apply because "cover" as an object that a model can touch or be in no longer exists.

You are still infering that a model cannot gain a save if they are not touching or in cover, which the rules do not say (even if they did it would be impossible in 5th).

How can models be obscured from the firer LOS if you don't need to check LOS for the SMS?

They don't, as it states, if models are obscured from the LOS of the firer, luckily they're not as we don't need to check LOS.

Tyron wrote:How can models be obscured from the firer LOS if you don't need to check LOS for the SMS?

They don't, as it states, if models are obscured from the LOS of the firer, luckily they're not as we don't need to check LOS.

You are still confusing the rules that allow you to fire w/o needing LOS, and the rules granting obscurment...one does not equal the other. You just need to re-read both sections in the rules, because we have explained them to you MANY times and you still are not understaning.

It is the same way that my Eldar do not need LOS to cast Eldritch Storm. However, if the model is obscured from the Farseer's view, the target will get a cover save.

It is the EXACT same thing as SMS. No LOS is required to fire; however, that doesn't change the fact that the target is still obscured from view, and thus by definition is "in cover", by RAW.

The rules do not say that you lose the cover save from obscurement if the firer doesn't need LOS to fire. Just because you can shoot w/o seeing your target, does not mean that you get to ignore other rules, as well.

Again, SMS says that you may take cover saves against them if you are in cover. 5th ed says that if you are obscured, you are "in cover".

The rules are VERY clear....it is the intent (and edition change) that muddles things up. Nonetheless, we must play by the actual rules.

Seriously?!

What if I said to you that my interpretation is how it is played in large tournaments? Ones where people consistently argue over rules such as this?

TAU.27E.02 – Q: Can enemy non-vehicle models utilize a cover save against Smart Missile System wounds?
A: As the weapon does not require line of sight, they may only claim a cover save if at least half of their models are actually in terrain and/or touching a piece of intervening terrain [clarification].
Ref: ELD.45B.02, TAU.30K.01

http://www.adepticon.org/files/INATFAQv2.2.pdf

The OP is 100% within RAW. You are attempting to extrapolate parts of a sentence and manipulate it to meet your criteria. It is obvious that cover is defined as being actually in it, not "counting as" being in it.

If one of the largest tournaments in the US, an FAQ that GW 'Ard Boyz is using, is incorrect... well clearly you know something we all don't.

Ridiculous.

@OP
Show him the FAQ.

Read the Tenets of YMDC. Particularly, point #2.

Only GW rules and erratta/FAQs are to be used. The Inat FAQ is not offcial. It is simply used in tourneys that adopt it.

We are discussing the RAW that GW has written. If you want to discuss RAI, you need to clarify that, and post accordingly.

I (and others) have shown where being obscured = being "in cover" (gp. 21 BRB).

Until you can show an official rule that says you lose that cover if your opponent does not require LOS, your entire arguement is moot, because the SMS entry states that you get saves for being "in cover".

Yes it reads point of view from the firer. We all know all units shoot linier (which defines if the target is obscured or not), unless specified. The SMS is except from linier shooting and thus is unaffected.

I agree with paiidinfull, you lot are only reading half the sentence and not taking all of it, the SMS description into context. Even in the obscure section of the second half of the first parograph which everyones doesn't quote is giving a description of why they're getting it.

Tyron wrote:Yes it reads point of view from the firer. We all know all units shoot linier (which defines if the target is obscured or not), unless specified. The SMS is except from linier shooting and thus is unaffected.
I agree with paiidinfull, you lot are only reading half the sentence and not taking all of it, the SMS description into context to give yourself a cover save.

Again, you are writing intent and interpretation into the rules. This is a discussion about written rules, not intent.

I have shown you thw RAW of why your interpretation is wrong. Being obscured = being "in cover", and the SMS allows saves for being in cover, per RAW.

Show me the written GW rules that say you are right, and that not needing LOS = ignoring the cover save for being obscured.

Let me help, its not there.

The only thing close is under "Barrage Weapons", and while SMS might function in a similar fashion, they still are not "Barrage".

SMS does not ignore LOS.
Really.
rtfm.

It allows , and I quote (again) "The smart missle system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not."
Extrapolation? Here you go:

Tyron wrote:if you don't need to check LOS for the SMS?

Wrong. Utterly.

In fact, you are required to check LOS to find out if this even matters.

It does mention cover, and in no way does this contradict, negate, or even relate to the rules for cover in the main rules.

So, yes, it can ENGAGE models in cover.
Those models then get cover saves.

Still.

Alerian do you know what obscure means? You do know for something to be obscure they have to see it first for the target to be obscure, the SMS doesn't need LOS so how can something that doesnt need to see a target be obscured.

It is impossible, you are now breaking the law of physics.

Again you quote me the obscured section which is for all units who shoot in linier unless their special rule states other wise such as the SMS.

and like paidinfull says either everyone else is wrong and you and a few other people know something we don't (breaking the law of physics) or we are all cheating. Which is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyron wrote:Alerian do you know what obscure means? You do know for something to be obscure they have to see it first for the target to be obscure, the SMS doesn't need LOS so how can something that doesnt need to see a target be obscured.

It is impossible, you are now breaking the law of physics.

Again you quote me the obscured section which is for all units who shoot in linier unless their special rule states other wise such as the SMS.

and like paidinfull says either everyone else is wrong and you and a few other people know something we don't (breaking the law of physics) or we are all cheating. Which is it?

"In fact, you are required to check LOS to find out if this even matters. "

Correct for those with linier shooting unless specified, in the SMS description you don't need to check for LOS.

Tyron wrote:Correct for those with linier shooting unless specified, in the SMS description you don't need to check for LOS.

Quote please?

It never says that. I actually quoted why you are wrong about 6 times.

Tyron wrote:Alerian do you know what obscure means? You do know for something to be obscure they have to see it first for the target to be obscure, the SMS doesn't need LOS so how can something that doesnt need to see a target be obscured.

It is impossible, you are now breaking the law of physics.

Again you quote me the obscured section which is for all units who shoot in linier unless their special rule states other wise such as the SMS.

and like paidinfull says either everyone else is wrong and you and a few other people know something we don't (breaking the law of physics) or we are all cheating. Which is it?

1. There are no "linear" shooting rules in 40k. There are just shooting rules, with subsets, such as "barrage".
2. Real Physics play no bearing on 40k rules.
3. Dictionary definitions don't matter in 40k, as the BRB defines what the game terms are (such as obscured)
4. I have already pointed you to the Tenets of YMDC, and yet you continue to break them. Please, read them, them come back for a real discussion.

The writtten rules to not back up your interpretations...at all. The rules must say that SMS ignore obscurement cover saves for you to be right, since being obscured = being "in cover" in 5th edition.

If you want to play RAI, that is fine (I think the whole obscured saves are rather broken and I miss the old cover save rules, myself). However, all you have offered is your interpretation, based on how things worked in 4th ed and how you think things should work, based on "the real world". None of that matters in a 5th ed rules discussion; all that matters are the written rules.

kirsanth how does the majority of units check to see if they can shoot a target? It even says throughout the book LINE (linier) of sight.

That is my quote.

"Real Physics play no bearing on 40k rules. "

Really? Then what is LINE (linier) of sight? That is physics right there.

I'm locking this thread for generating too many complaints.

If anyone wants it unlocked they can PM me.