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 have seen at least 50 matches where this houserule of you wasn't used.
Take up some statistics and you'll understand that it is enough.

What rules did I made up?
And what rules do I need to provide?
I am not the person here making up 'arcs' and other bs that is not represented in the BRB or stuff like "through" and "over" a gap which isn't explained either.
I have combined the rules from page 18 of the BRB and came to the following logical conclusion:
1. Models who are hidden for 25% by terrain get a cover save.
2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

This is not only the most natural and logical thing to do, it also follows all the rules in the BRB.

easysauce wrote:
yeah, this is just beating a dead horse, kang seems unwilling or unable to aknowledge that for any amount of a model to be covered by anything, you have to draw LOS from the eyes of the firer to each point on the target, and see if 25% of the target is obscured.

That is exactly what I have been saying all along?
Are you even reading my posts or what?
You are putting words in my mouth and claiming that I said things which I did not say.

thread should be locked, its just the same person coming back with the same disproven arguements at this point.

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

for those legitimately wondering how it works, the above graphic is correct

Yup. Except for the last image ofcourse, because that one is incorrect.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Combining those three rules would imply that:
1. Models who are hidden for 25% by terrain get a cover save.
2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

People are seriously arguing against this? And claiming to know how to read when they do it?

Ah Dakka, such a source of wisdom...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:

yeah, this is just beating a dead horse, kang seems unwilling or unable to aknowledge that for any amount of a model to be covered by anything, you have to draw LOS from the eyes of the firer to each point on the target, and see if 25% of the target is obscured.

Um, he is literally saying exactly what you just said...

no, he is saying you can choose to draw LOS to the target models HEAD only, so that your "line" of sight goes over intervening models, completely ignoring that from the shooters eyes to the models feet has intervening models, or their gaps, obscuring it.

intervening models specifically grants the obscured cover save to models, even if they are "completely visible", in direct contrast to the other cover rules earlier on the page that put a 25% coverage requirement.

the 25% for intervening models is literally made up, and contradicts the actual rule that they get the save when "completely visible"

easysauce wrote:
no, he is saying you can choose to draw LOS to the target models HEAD only, so that your "line" of sight goes over intervening models, completely ignoring that from the shooters eyes to the models feet has intervening models, or their gaps, obscuring it.

No, I am not saying that?
Again: Don't respond to my posts if you don't take the time to read them.
Most fora consider that spamming or trolling.

intervening models specifically grants the obscured cover save to models, even if they are "completely visible", in direct contrast to the other cover rules earlier on the page that put a 25% coverage requirement.

Except for the part where intervening units give the cover "as if they were behind terrain", which some people seem to forget all the time.

the 25% for intervening models is literally made up, and contradicts the actual rule that they get the save when "completely visible"

1. "As if they were behind terrain."
2. They only get that save when the shots go THROUGH the gap.
And how do we decide whether the shots go through or over the gap? Simply by using the 25% rule.
Does the gap cover 25% of the model? Then we get a 5+ save, even though the model is completely visible.

I agree with Kangodo.

The rule for gaining cover by an intervening unit tells us that it works similarly to terrain. Terrain grants cover if it obscures the target 25% (exceptions: area, forests). If you play the rule the way Kangodo and I have described, the cover rules work consistently, always requiring 25% coverage, except in the area terrain and Forest special cases.

Playing this way also avoids absurd outcomes like two grots 2” apart providing cover to a Riptide, because the gap between them covers his feet, when if those same two grots were directly in front of him they wouldn’t give cover, because they’d only cover… his feet.

I think the counter position is reading “the shot passes through” as “any part of the LOS passes through” the gap, which is an inference, and I think it’s a mistaken one. It smacks of 5th ed hangover to me, when the rules supported granting cover if any tiny part of the body was obscured. The 6th ed rules are not designed to work that way.

The "completely visible" is more specific than "as if they were behind terrain"

Therefore firing through the gape even when "completely visible" affords a cover save, as per the rules.

I'm not disputing "completely visible", as my grot example should make clear.

What I'm disputing is the interpretation some folks are using of when you count as :"firing through the gaps".

I think Kangodo is right.

Kangodo wrote:

easysauce wrote:
no, he is saying you can choose to draw LOS to the target models HEAD only, so that your "line" of sight goes over intervening models, completely ignoring that from the shooters eyes to the models feet has intervening models, or their gaps, obscuring it.

No, I am not saying that?
Again: Don't respond to my posts if you don't take the time to read them.
Most fora consider that spamming or trolling.

intervening models specifically grants the obscured cover save to models, even if they are "completely visible", in direct contrast to the other cover rules earlier on the page that put a 25% coverage requirement.

Except for the part where intervening units give the cover "as if they were behind terrain", which some people seem to forget all the time.

the 25% for intervening models is literally made up, and contradicts the actual rule that they get the save when "completely visible"

1. "As if they were behind terrain."
2. They only get that save when the shots go THROUGH the gap.
And how do we decide whether the shots go through or over the gap? Simply by using the 25% rule.
Does the gap cover 25% of the model? Then we get a 5+ save, even though the model is completely visible.

we are not forgetting the 25% rule, you are adding it into a section of the rules where it does not apply.

you are writing your own rules at this point, the 25% rule has nothing to do with shooting over anything, elevation does,


your premise is that that BRB pg 18

"if a unit is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a thrid unit ... it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that 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 rather then through it."

means

And how do we decide whether the shots go through or over the gap? Simply by using the 25% rule.
Does the gap cover 25% of the model? Then we get a 5+ save, even though the model is completely visible

you keep cutting off the preamble to "as if it were behind terrain", you are the one ignoring half a rule, which has already GIVEN the 5+ cover save to the target for simply being partially hidden. you do this "as if it were behind terrain" by the very fact of it having a cover save, that does not mean the same thing as "refer to the rules on pg x" to determine IF it gets a cover save"

you are already told to give the save as if it were behind terrain, you are not being told to impose more limitations, nor the 25% limitation found in a different rule.

you keep going on and on about 25% , in a rule which never tells you to take 25% into account,

you assert "as if it were behind terrain" means "refer to the previous paragraphs rules" or "partially" means 25%, instead of meaning what they mean.


I simply assert that BRB pg 18

"if a unit is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a thrid unit ... it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that 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 rather then through it."

means what it says,


and no titans wont get cover from grots, nor will any other VEHICLE since they are expressly stated as the exception to the rule (pg 74), and need 25% for intervening models

how can the BRB say pg 74

the difference from the way cover works for other models is represented by the following exceptions to the normal rules for cover:
*at least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover.

be and exception to anything if you already need 25% for intervening models?

stop imposing the 25% qualifier for intervening TERRAIN onto intervening MODELS, separate rules, with different qualifications

"if a unit is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit ... it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that 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 rather then through it."

I read "it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain." And "Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer." as going together. That the "as if it were behind terrain" clause is what tells us how we know whether a model is firing through the gaps between models. That is, we use the normal 25% rule to make that determination, with the exception that the empty space between models counts as obscuring. The argument that if ANY part of the model's LOS cone passes between two models in a unit, that necessarily means that the shot is going between, is an inference, and I don't think it's a well-supported one.

Again, this avoids absurd situations like two grots standing one in front of the other, hiding the feet of a Riptide, not giving cover (because they cover far less than 25%), but the same two grots, placed 2" apart somehow now granting cover, because LOS can be drawn between them to those same feet.

And it's also more consistent with the cover rules in general.

Kangodo-You must be able to see the whole model unobscured that is what people refer to when they talk about the arc or cone they are not making things up they are stating that you must be able to see the entire model from head to toe unobscured otherwise the model would be obscured and get cover from the intervening models

 Mannahnin wrote:

"if a unit is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit ... it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that 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 rather then through it."

I read "it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain." And "Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unite, that target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer." as going together. That the "as if it were behind terrain" clause is what tells us how we know whether a model is firing through the gaps between models. That is, we use the normal 25% rule to make that determination, with the exception that the empty space between models counts as obscuring. The argument that if ANY part of the model's LOS cone passes between two models in a unit, that necessarily means that the shot is going between, is an inference, and I don't think it's a well-supported one.

Again, this avoids absurd situations like two grots standing one in front of the other, hiding the feet of a Riptide, not giving cover (because they cover far less than 25%), but the same two grots, placed 2" apart somehow now granting cover, because LOS can be drawn between them to those same feet.

And it's also more consistent with the cover rules in general.

Having had a look at the paragraph, perhaps it's the other way around? It doesn't say that a target partially obscured by intervening models may be eligible for a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain - it says the target receives a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. This reads to me like they're saying the cover save works the same way as if you're behind terrain - ie. it's just a regular cover save. It doesn't say it's possible that it will get one, it says you do get one. That would resolve the inconsistency by removing the 25% stipulation on the intervening models.

Also, the fluffy part of that section says that the intervening models aren't necessarily stopping the bullets, just spoiling the firer's aim, so the person firing at the Riptide is clearly just distracted by the grots' zany antics.

I do think it's impossible to make the argument in reverse, RAW (eg. 25% of height must be obscured by the intervening unit) because the "as if it was behind terrain" is only applied to the first sentence, not both. There's a definite argument that it's what was intended (and I think it'd be very reasonable to play it that way) but it's not what's written down.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Having had a look at the paragraph, perhaps it's the other way around? It doesn't say that a target partially obscured by intervening models may be eligible for a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain - it says the target receives a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. This reads to me like they're saying the cover save works the same way as if you're behind terrain - ie. it's just a regular cover save.

The way a model receives a cover save if it is behind terrain relies upon the 25% caveat. This is what the word and phrase 'receives' and 'in the same way' mean. Therefore, the same rule applies to the Intervening Models rule. This is how English works.

Seriously, it's like people making "RaW" arguments, even if playing devil's advocate, often have little understanding of how language works.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Having had a look at the paragraph, perhaps it's the other way around? It doesn't say that a target partially obscured by intervening models may be eligible for a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain - it says the target receives a cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. This reads to me like they're saying the cover save works the same way as if you're behind terrain - ie. it's just a regular cover save.

The way a model receives a cover save if it is behind terrain relies upon the 25% caveat. This is what the word and phrase 'receives' and 'in the same way' mean. Therefore, the same rule applies to the Intervening Models rule. This is how English works.

Seriously, it's like people making "RaW" arguments, even if playing devil's advocate, often have little understanding of how language works.

What I find odd about your post is that "how English works" is that there is no one way that English works. It's a poorly-defined human language with no central authority - it only exists in our brains. As a matter of fact, if I had written those rules in that way then based on my quoted reading you could be entirely wrong.

I suspect you have mentally placed brackets in a different place to where I did in that reading. I might paraphrase mine as, "the target gets a cover save like it would if it was behind terrain." I am not sure that this is an objectionable reading of an English sentence. I believe it is not.

Kangodo wrote:I have seen at least 50 matches where this houserule of you wasn't used.
Take up some statistics and you'll understand that it is enough.

I did do, enough to know that your sample population is not large enough for you to make the unqualified claim that you did. Especially when I have played in over 20 tournaments, with 30 - 120 people in each one, where the correct rules were used, totally invalidating your claim that "most people" play it that way.

AMusing you call it a houserule when you have made up a rule that states that 25% of the model must be covered despite being told that the model is allowed to be entirely visible. That is the definition of a houserule

Kangodo wrote:What rules did I made up?
And what rules do I need to provide? I am not the person here making up 'arcs' and other bs that is not represented in the BRB or stuff like "through" and "over" a gap which isn't explained either.

Sorry "bs"? Lol.

You wanted to know what "through" a gap meant. I was explaining it to you using language. You keep claiming we cannot know what "through" means, because it isnt in the rulebook, totally ignoring that neither is the word" the", yet we understand what that means

I have shown you what "through" means, using the rules in the rulebook and the English language. The fact you continually ignore that is not my issue. A bit like you keep ignoring what "battle" means.

Kangodo wrote:I have combined the rules from page 18 of the BRB and came to the following logical conclusion:

Ah, so you have made up a rule at the end, hence "come to the following logical conclusion". If you were NOT making up rules, you would be able to point to a page and para explaining your conclusion - but you cannot do so, as you have just admitted

So, when asking others "what rules have I made up" I think you have given yourself the answer, if you would only sit back and look at what you are typing.

Kangodo wrote:1. Models who are hidden for 25% by terrain get a cover save.
2. Models who are hidden for 25% by intervening units get a cover save.
3. Models who are "hidden" for 25% by a gap in intervening units get a cover save.

3) Is made up out of thin air, and has no rules support as it ignores that the rules state you receive a cover save for firing THROUGH a unit. THROUGH being the bit you are ignoring and pretending NOW has something to do with the 25% rule, when the rules do not require that.

Kangodo wrote:This is not only the most natural and logical thing to do, it also follows all the rules in the BRB.

What, apart from the rule you just admitted you made up? You cannot be "follow[ing] all the rules in the BRB" if you have just made up a rule.

The rules only require that you are firing THROUGH a unit in order to grant a cover save
How do you determine if you are firing THROUGH a unit? You trace a line from the models "eyes" to the target unit. If that intersects [which is now a plane, as elementary maths tells you] the line drawn between models of the intervening unit, you are firing THROUGH that unit

All done using TLOS, and all done without making up any rules.

So, page and paragraph where your Conclusion (point 3) is explicitly stated. Until then the ACTUAL rules apply.

Then take the class again, 50 is more than enough.
But surely you could link me one of those battle reports where for example Stompas claim cover from an Ork Boy?

"that 25% of the model must be covered despite being told that the model is allowed to be entirely visible."
You do know that a model can be covered by a gap, right? That means the gap covers 25% of the model, even though the model is still visible due to a gap being *gosh* AIR!

"You keep claiming we cannot know what "through" means"
That's because nothing in the rules tells us when a shot goes through cover/models/gaps and when it goes over cover/models/gaps.
Except for the 25%-rule, which is the only rule that tells us when a shot goes over something and when it doesn't go over something.
So in order for us to know if the shot actually went over or through the cover/model/gap, we need to use that rule.

And stop accusing me of making up rules!
I have asked one clear question:
How do we know if a shot goes over or through models/gaps?
I have provided the 25%-rule, which exists in the rules and is actually supported by the BRB.
You provide nothing but some babbling about an "arc of sight", which has NO support in the rules.

"You trace a line from the models "eyes" to the target unit. If that intersects [which is now a plane, as elementary maths tells you] the line drawn between models of the intervening unit, you are firing THROUGH that unit"
See? You are doing it again. The rules do not support this.
The rules do not tell you to use a "plane of sight".
The rules tell you to grant a cover save if you are shooting through a gap.

And when do you fire THROUGH a gap?
We could make up some nonsense about "planes of sight" which have no support in the rules unless you would like to quote the rule that speaks about it.
Or we can use the 25%-rule which is clearly described on page 18.

Kangodo wrote:Then take the class again, 50 is more than enough.

Lol. You havent taken formal stats have you? Or any real world applications of such? Such as securitisation of assets, something I HAVE worked on. It depends on your population, and as we have a population in the tens of thousands (ultra conservative estimate), then to adequately extrapolate from a sample the sample has to be more than 50. Also you didnt say if they were the same people (50 games with the same people or 50 different gamers) nor have you defined your CI

Give it up. You made an assertion you cannot back up, and wont admit your error.

Kangodo wrote:But surely you could link me one of those battle reports where for example Stompas claim cover from an Ork Boy?

WEll, that would be foolhardy given vehicles have different rules. Or have you missed that? And it wouldnt be "An" Ork boy, but a pair otherwise you cannot be firing through the gaps. I could explain why but i guess you would complain I was making up rules....

Kangodo wrote:"that 25% of the model must be covered despite being told that the model is allowed to be entirely visible."
You do know that a model can be covered by a gap, right? That means the gap covers 25% of the model, even though the model is still visible due to a gap being *gosh* AIR!

No, it does not say "covered by" a gap, it states "shooting through" a gap. NOticed the difference yet?

Kangodo wrote:"You keep claiming we cannot know what "through" means"
That's because nothing in the rules tells us when a shot goes through cover/models/gaps and when it goes over cover/models/gaps.

TLOS and the English Language. This HAS been explained to you, a number of times

Given you require a definition for every word, please find a definition for "The" and "A" within the 40k rulebook. When you have done so, get back to us. Or you could admit we are allowed to know what certain words mean, and that the meaning of "through", when using True Line of Sight, is damned obvious. We have also tried to, a number of times, explain this in simple elementary terms which you have dismissed as "making up rules", when you have JUST admitted, finally , that that is exactly what you are doing.

We are not making up rules, we are applying the rule "fire through" precisely.

Kangodo wrote:Except for the 25%-rule, which is the only rule that tells us when a shot goes over something and when it doesn't go over something.

Wrong, that rule has no bearing on over or through. IT tells you how much of the model is obscured by a "thing", and NOTHING MORE. Anything else you make up is just that - a made up rule

You are extrapolating wildly, much like your "most of" CLAIM above that has been debunked over and over.

Kangodo wrote:So in order for us to know if the shot actually went over or through the cover/model/gap, we need to use that rule.

No, because you are then a) changing what the rule does and b) making up a requirement that doesnt exist in the rules. 2 things you are making up.

Kangodo wrote:And stop accusing me of making up rules!

It isnt accusation ,you stated as much yourself. You stated you "came to a logical conclusion" that you use the 25% rule despite the rules making no such requirement. That is EXACTLY making up rules.

Kangodo wrote:I have asked one clear question:
How do we know if a shot goes over or through models/gaps?

And the answer has been provided. You choose to dismiss that answer, and make up other rules in their place, but that does not change the real, true actual answer

Kangodo wrote:I have provided the 25%-rule, which exists in the rules and is actually supported by the BRB.

It exists as a rule, but does not apply here, for reasons already discussed. You have changed the meaning of the rule into something else, with no permission to do so.

Kangodo wrote:You provide nothing but some babbling about an "arc of sight", which has NO support in the rules.

Sigh. Yet it applies just the same, because that is what "thruogh" means in a game with true line of sight.

Also, it isnt "babbling" but reasoned arguments, that you continually ignore and berate despite making up rules and assertions. Your continued swearing, insults and aggression over toy soldiers is quite alarming, and is becoming wearing. Frankly I do not believe you are capable of listening to anothers argument, as i have done my best - through the vitriol, swearing and made up rules - to listen to yours.

Kangodo wrote:"You trace a line from the models "eyes" to the target unit. If that intersects [which is now a plane, as elementary maths tells you] the line drawn between models of the intervening unit, you are firing THROUGH that unit"
See? You are doing it again. The rules do not support this.

They do, because they tell you to detemrine if you are firing through. This is an explanation, using elementary language, of how you do precisely that.

You have to do this because "through" is not defined in the rulebook, so you have to use tis tool called "language" to derive the meaning of the words used. In order to explain that meanign in a text only forum you then explain it with more words.

This isnt making up rules, this is explaining the actions required to follow the rules. That you cannot understand the difference is frankly astonishing.

Kangodo wrote:The rules do not tell you to use a "plane of sight".

No, I am explaining, using language, what "through" means.
You have consistently made up a rule (the 25% rule) when the actual rules make no such reference. You cannot provide a page reference to where this rule applies to firing "through", yet still claim you are not making up rules. The dishonesty in that approach is impressive.

The rules tell you to grant a cover save if you are shooting through a gap.

Kangodo wrote:And when do you fire THROUGH a gap?

BY using true line of sight, and getting down and checking. Or do we have to explain what "through" means again? You do understand what that word means, yes?

Kangodo wrote:We could make up some nonsense about "planes of sight" which have no support in the rules unless you would like to quote the rule that speaks about it.
Or we can use the 25%-rule which is clearly described on page 18.

Yes, and which does not apply in this situation, because the actual 25% rule does not say this is how you determine if you are firing "through" the gaps between a unit

I agree it is A rule, however it is not the ACTUAL rule relating to firing through the gaps in models. You have made up a requirement (that models must be 25% covered) which does not exist in the actual, written rules.

THAT is the rule you have made up, and THAT is your argument destroyed, again.

You're on ignore, as frankly rational debate appears impossible.

dial it back a notch or two please gents.

I'm giving up.
You are beyond help of you cannot see that the rule-book does not define firing "through" a gap.

Firing "through" a gap is 100% clear if the target is not bigger than the model.
It gets ambiguous when the target rises above the gap: The question: "Do I fire over or through the gap?" comes to mind.

How do we answer that:
You: Hey, let's use TLOS to make an arc/plane!
Me: Use the 25%-rule.

Again: Your answer is not covered by rules, you are making things up.
Deny it all you want, doesn't change the fact that you are using planes and arcs that the rulebook does not mention.
What the rulebook DOES mention is a 25%-rule. That rule can be used here.

I am done.
The point is proven.

"You are beyond help of you cannot see that the rule-book does not define firing "through" a gap."

It would really behoove you to read others posts. I have stated the rulebook does NTO define what "through" means. I have, repeatedly, stated that language does

The 25% rule does not apply here, because that requirement is not stipulated in the actual, written rules. That requirement is entirely, 100% made-up out of whole cloth

The poiint is proven - you use "firing through" and nothing more. No 25% "rule", as you are not determining if a model is obscured by a piece of terrain.

"You're on ignore, as frankly rational debate appears impossible."

But we don't need language to explain stuff that can be covered by rules.
We have three rules.
This is my interpretation of these rules.
You disagree.
Now be done with it?

Except it is not covered by rules.

There is no requirement to be "covered" 25% by the models creating the gap; that rule is 100% absent.

As such you must simply use the language given to parse the rules

It is not simple disagreement, it is pointing out you have made up a requirement that does not exist. You fail to admit you have done so, DESPITE saying you have "come to a logical conclusion" - a statement *requiring8 you to have made up a rule, otherwise it is not a "logical conclusion", it is just "the rules" and you are UNABLE to provide the rule *stating* that a requirement to be "firing through" is that the model must be covered 25%

As you cannot provide a rule listing your requirement applies, your requirement does not apply. I It is incredible you are unable to see this.

So you fall back on language, which in a game with TLOS perfectly, 100% adequately defines what "firing through" and "firing over" means. It literally, 100% means "does your shot pass through the gap?" and you havea 100% reliable method - TLOS - to determine that.

I'm done with this argument, as you cannot prove yoru case, whereas I have proven mine.

Seems we're done then.