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.

Hey guys, I'm starting a Tyranid army and wanted to clear up something with cover saves before I started playing games.

I've done a bit of searching on it but found conflicting opinions, both sides seemed to have merits but I thought someone on here could clear it up for me as I can't decided either way or I'm missing something obvious.

From what I can see in the BRB Monstrous Creatures are treated the same basic infantry when it comes to cover saves. I.e. They get cover from been in area terrain, 25% coverage from an intervening piece of terrain grants a cover save based on whatever is blocking them.

The one I couldn't seem to work out properly was the Infantry "partially obscuring" a model, even if there are gaps between the intervening models that still grant complete vision to the target.

Does this mean I can wrap gaunts around the base of something like a tervigon? Essentially blocking its toes (Hooves in this case) from vision of an attacker and still receive the 5+ cover save?

There are a couple of statements in the paragraph explaining this that seem to give merit for this been played either way so if anyone can shed some light for me would be great!

e.g. It mentions partial obscurity and cover still been applied with total vision through minis, which to me would be talking about something less than the normal 25% coverage granting the same save.

I am also interested,

The page 18 rules states:

"If a target 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 was behind terrain" [6th edition rulebook]

Does the line "in the same way as if it was behind terrain" mean that it therefore must be 25% obscured, or does the intervening models rule override it? Since that rule only states partially hidden and also states further down "if a model fires through gaps in intervening models, the target is in cover even if completely visible" which seems to override the 25% obscured.

I believe you still have to obscure 25% of the model with the other models for it to get the 5+ cover. Which could be tough to do with Gaunts.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I believe you still have to obscure 25% of the model with the other models for it to get the 5+ cover. Which could be tough to do with Gaunts.

Just to present the opposite view point (I am personally not quite decided), it specifies 25% in other places but doesn't here, implying that it doesn't apply, and so that "partially" just means any part, whatsoever, of the model that wants the save. Yes, that means the Tervigons toe!

"If a target 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 was behind terrain" [6th edition rulebook]

@ jifel: However it specifies that it receives the cover save in the same way as if behind terrain. If less than 25% of a model is covered by terrain they do not receive the cover save so neither would you receive one if your model is less than 25% covered by intervening models.

DutchSage wrote:
"If a target 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 was behind terrain" [6th edition rulebook]

@ jifel: However it specifies that it receives the cover save in the same way as if behind terrain. If less than 25% of a model is covered by terrain they do not receive the cover save so neither would you receive one if your model is less than 25% covered by intervening models.

Then were does this "if a model fires through gaps in intervening models, the target is in cover even if completely visible" come into play? that would never happen if you applied that logic.

I do see what you mean though, but I'm reading that more as it saying "as if it was", not that it actually has to be i.e. its stipulating that this is an exception to normal cover situation.

e.g. if psyhic power makes an enemy unit move in the open "as if it was" in difficult terrain. I wouldn't go reading the difficult terrain rules then deem it not happening because he is in open ground.

DutchSage wrote:
"If a target 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 was behind terrain" [6th edition rulebook]

@ jifel: However it specifies that it receives the cover save in the same way as if behind terrain. If less than 25% of a model is covered by terrain they do not receive the cover save so neither would you receive one if your model is less than 25% covered by intervening models.

While that may be their intent, by the rules of English the "in the same way as if it was behind terrain" applies to the 5+ save, which is the same as that given by area terrain. For what you said to apply, it should have read: "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit in the same way as if it was behind terrain, it receives a 5+ cover save"

Again, just playing opposite here. It's pretty unclear.

DutchSage wrote:
"If a target 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 was behind terrain" [6th edition rulebook]

@ jifel: However it specifies that it receives the cover save in the same way as if behind terrain. If less than 25% of a model is covered by terrain they do not receive the cover save so neither would you receive one if your model is less than 25% covered by intervening models.

You're missing the crucial part that says "as if it was behind terrain", it is basically an automatic claim of being 25%+ covered.

As for the rules question at hand, I personally can't find anything about monstrous creatures that refutes them receiving cover differently from infantry (such as how the vehicle sections specifies this). Though it would come to mind as how you determine if you're shooting over the unit or not.

For instance, a carnifex or equivalent is pretty tall, so what is to stop me from saying I'm just shooting at its chest or head instead of at its feet? The same could be said for C'tan, their bodies aren't even on the base.

You cannot elect to shoot at chest or heads just simply the model.

Since you use true line of sight, if that little gaunts head is licking the carnifex's toe nails and you can see them at the shooting models line of sight how can you claim to shoot over the intervening model.

Steffo wrote:
You cannot elect to shoot at chest or heads just simply the model.

Since you use true line of sight, if that little gaunts head is licking the carnifex's toe nails and you can see them at the shooting models line of sight how can you claim to shoot over the intervening model.

Read the LOS rules then tell me I can't shoot in the same straight unblocked lines path.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Read the LOS rules then tell me I can't shoot in the same straight unblocked lines path.

The part where it says check line of sight to the enemy model.

the enemy model is the whole model.

P.S.

"The rules don't say I can't!"

Is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false.

The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it.

The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Steffo wrote:
You cannot elect to shoot at chest or heads just simply the model.

Since you use true line of sight, if that little gaunts head is licking the carnifex's toe nails and you can see them at the shooting models line of sight how can you claim to shoot over the intervening model.

Read the LOS rules then tell me I can't shoot in the same straight unblocked lines path.

You can but then part of the tervigon is still partially obscured by that little gaunt, then recieves a 5+ save in the same way "as if it was" behind terrain. The same way a standing space marine would get a save behind a kneeling scout even if you can draw direct unbroken line of sight to his head and torso.

Thats the way I'm reading it anyway. It does sound silly though, thats why I was confirming there was nothing I had missed in the rules in regard to MC's and this rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Read the LOS rules then tell me I can't shoot in the same straight unblocked lines path.

The part where it says check line of sight to the enemy model.

the enemy model is the whole model.

P.S.

"The rules don't say I can't!"

Is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false.

The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it.

The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

I'm not taking the stance of "the rules don't say I can't".

I'm saying that most monstrous creatures are much larger than standard infantry and much easier to grant unblocked line of sight to the model. Even the part where it says to check line of sight to the enemy unit references page 8, which also says to draw a straight unblocked line from the firer to the target. Which in most cases with monstrous creatures you can easily do. Obviously the 25% rule would be in check and also going by the example on page 8 you're not restricted to only flat lines but can indeed check on planes as well.

Let's look at another example then, jetbikes on flying bases are typically raised above, could they not "fire over" intervening models? By your statement, no they couldn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vossyvo wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Steffo wrote:
You cannot elect to shoot at chest or heads just simply the model.

Since you use true line of sight, if that little gaunts head is licking the carnifex's toe nails and you can see them at the shooting models line of sight how can you claim to shoot over the intervening model.

Read the LOS rules then tell me I can't shoot in the same straight unblocked lines path.

You can but then part of the tervigon is still partially obscured by that little gaunt, then recieves a 5+ save in the same way "as if it was" behind terrain. The same way a standing space marine would get a save behind a kneeling scout even if you can draw direct unbroken line of sight to his head and torso.

Thats the way I'm reading it anyway. It does sound silly though, thats why I was confirming there was nothing I had missed in the rules in regard to MC's and this rule.

I'm honestly on the fence on this as well. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how you can define a shot going "over" a unit rather than through it, other than the obvious things such as Barrage weapons or shots from weapons that have a clear height advantage (monolith particle whip).

Or shots from a normal model standing on a hill.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Read the LOS rules then tell me I can't shoot in the same straight unblocked lines path.

I'm not taking the stance of "the rules don't say I can't".

Umm what? you did say what I underscored right?

I'm saying that most monstrous creatures are much larger than standard infantry and much easier to grant unblocked line of sight to the model. Even the part where it says to check line of sight to the enemy unit references page 8, which also says to draw a straight unblocked line from the firer to the target. Which in most cases with monstrous creatures you can easily do. Obviously the 25% rule would be in check and also going by the example on page 8 you're not restricted to only flat lines but can indeed check on planes as well.

Let's look at another example then, jetbikes on flying bases are typically raised above, could they not "fire over" intervening models? By your statement, no they couldn't.

They can if the actual Line of sight to the enemy model (Read every part of the enemy model) goes over the intervening unit.

If when drawing line of sight to the enemy model the line of sight can be traced through an enemy unit to even a fraction of a targetable body part then the enemy will get a cover save.

We play any 3rd unit which has to be shot through, provides a cover save regardless of %
As DeathReaper described

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Read the LOS rules then tell me I can't shoot in the same straight unblocked lines path.

I'm not taking the stance of "the rules don't say I can't".

Umm what? you did say what I underscored right?

Yes, that is indeed what I said. But I won't be faulted for your misinterpretation or assumptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nem wrote:
We play any 3rd unit which has to be shot through, provides a cover save regardless of %
As DeathReaper described

As do we.

I asked this a little while ago and here's what my group's consensus was:

In order to achieve a 5+ cover save from an intervening unit, the target (in this case the MC) must have 25% coverage PERIOD. i.e. a unit of termagants CAN NOT confer a cover save to the Tervigon standing behind them.

However, Gargoyles can due to the positioning.

Long story short, use Gargoyles to give your MCs cover, or just stand in cover!



I'll be attending a tournament in a month and a half and intend to ask the same question to the TO.

roxor08 wrote:
I asked this a little while ago and here's what my group's consensus was:

In order to achieve a 5+ cover save from an intervening unit, the target (in this case the MC) must have 25% coverage PERIOD. i.e. a unit of termagants CAN NOT confer a cover save to the Tervigon standing behind them.

However, Gargoyles can due to the positioning.

Long story short, use Gargoyles to give your MCs cover, or just stand in cover!



I'll be attending a tournament in a month and a half and intend to ask the same question to the TO.

Long Story short, your groups interpretation is a house rule.

RAW any non-vehicle model gets a cover save if the shot can draw line of sight through a unit to any part of the target. (Note this does not include shots that go over units).

I agree DeathReaper, RAW the monster gets the cover save.

Needless to say it makes a fair difference getting this save... so I just wanted people’s opinions on it before I start claiming it.

When I did some searching quite a few people were calling it the way Roxor8 has said (even calling it neck bearding suggesting otherwise), without much evidence as to why, but for this to happen you would have to treat standard infantry the same way which they then had a problem with, they seem to rule MC’s as some exception to this. There is no rule to exclude MC’s getting the same cover privileges.

whats with people constantly quoting the 25% rule? That is only talked about in ONE section of the rulebook - vehicles. MCs are not a vehicle, so how are you applying it?

If you cannot see the entirety of the target, theres cover. Nothing states how much of it must be covered, except that common sense indicates tails, wings, and guns wouldnt count since you cant shoot at them either.

If you were allowed to ignore a coversave via 25% or less of an intervening model, the rule that clearly says "even if the model is clearly visible" but shooting between the ranks of another unit would never apply.
This is why Vehicle units are so nice to give a save. They can spread 4inches apart, giving an effective 4inch hole of "intervening models" coversave to whatever is behind them.

As for the whole "Show me the rule saying i cant" thing, i too love that arguement. If this game was based on rules saying you cant, the book would be 5x bigger or i'd be allowed to give my Lootas twin-link via giving my Weirdboy Prescience - 55pt Twin-link to an already incredible unit? ooooo-aaaaah! (Incidentally nothing in my codex, FAQ, or in the BRB says i can or cant, i only know i cant because other codexes specifically state they can use BRB spells...why else would it be there if you didnt need permission first?)

Also, aiming at a head chest or whatever part of the model. If this was allowed, vehicles with a better front armor would never get their front armor unless facing directly at what was shooting them. My BWs have a very narrow AV14 and a very wide AV12. Even if you are in the "quadrant" of the AV14, you can see my AV12 via turning your gun. Cant do that, otherwise what the hell is the point of the AV14 as i would never get it?

 Vineheart01 wrote:
whats with people constantly quoting the 25% rule? That is only talked about in ONE section of the rulebook - vehicles. MCs are not a vehicle, so how are you applying it?

Did you miss the part on page 18 entitled Determining Cover Saves?

Basically it comes down to this
(|
.| is a model. - is the weapon)


|-..................................|
| ____________|_______|
A....................B...........C
In this case the firing unit (A) is shooting over the intervening unit (B) at his target (C). If B covers 25% of a model in unit C, he gets a Cover Save. If the model is completely visible, including through gaps in unit B he does not, as unit A is not shooting through unit B.

Apologies for the crap art. Hope this makes sense.

 Happyjew wrote:


|-..................................|
| ____________|_______|
A....................B...........C
In this case the firing unit (A) is shooting over the intervening unit (B) at his target (C). If B covers 25% of a model in unit C, he gets a Cover Save. If the model is completely visible, including through gaps in unit B he does not, as unit A is not shooting through unit B.

The rules for intervening models contradict what you say.

What about the rule:
"if a model fires through gaps in intervening models, the target is in cover even if completely visible" You can't apply a 25% obscurity to that.

Here is how I see it in several different situations.




Scenario A, is the firing models table eye view on 4 gaunts in front of a MC. They don't block 25% of the MC's body which is the stipulation for normal cover rules however "If a target 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 was behind terrain". It meets this criteria as the firing miniature is partially obscured.

Scenario B, Again firing models table eye view on a single gaunt in front of a MC. Again he doesn't block 25% of the MC's total body but (as silly as it sounds) again he will receive the save i.e. "If a target 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 was behind terrain"

Scenario C, Is in regard to units firing over to deny cover. It’s the same perspective as scenario A but from a Fliers perspective or a model in an elevated position. No cover save would be received here as they can draw direct unobscured sight over the intervening units.

Scenario D, is a previously mentioned situation where say the two yellow blocks are a Vehicle unit (say Leman Russ tanks), 4 inches apart and providing 0% blockage of the unit behind them but as per "if a model fires through gaps in intervening models, the target is in cover even if completely visible" it would still receive the 5+ cover save.

This is how I understand it.

Steffo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


|-..................................|
| ____________|_______|
A....................B...........C
In this case the firing unit (A) is shooting over the intervening unit (B) at his target (C). If B covers 25% of a model in unit C, he gets a Cover Save. If the model is completely visible, including through gaps in unit B he does not, as unit A is not shooting through unit B.

The rules for intervening models contradict what you say.

What about the rule:
"if a model fires through gaps in intervening models, the target is in cover even if completely visible" You can't apply a 25% obscurity to that.

Except unit A is not firing through gaps, its firing over the intervening unit.

So like if there was just one gant in front of a Carnifex then every enemy shot is going to pass through it. I find that quite amusing.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So like if there was just one gant in front of a Carnifex then every enemy shot is going to pass through it. I find that quite amusing.

We'll 1/3 of the total shots fired haha. It is pretty stupid lol.

 Happyjew wrote:


Except unit A is not firing through gaps, its firing over the intervening unit.

How can you say its firing over it when part of the unit is in front of it. If you draw an unbroken line from the shooter to the target and any part of that line hits the intervening model then that is an intervening model...because it is intervening. You don't shoot at the center of the model or the chest or head, you shoot at the model. Maybe i am not understanding your diagram correctly sorry if that is the case.

 Happyjew wrote:
Except unit A is not firing through gaps, its firing over the intervening unit.

Even though this game draws line of sight without figuring out which way your gun is pointing, you would still get a cover save by this logic because you still have LESS of a target to shoot at since you are aiming higher than normal.
Thats what the 5+ cover is suppose to represent. Theres just no rule saying any saves made by the cover provided by intervening models gets thrown upon the models that were in the way instead (since thats what would happen with this situation IRL).

The rulebook actually gives the example as to why the gap between models of a unit still applies. Its representing the small chance of seeing the target, but you didnt take the shot at all or didnt fire in time due to the moving ranks of the unit between you and your target.
Bare in mind, even though everything is stationary, theyre suppose to be moving around according to the rules. Thats why Orks cant boarding plank something that went flat out because its going too damn fast to latch onto.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Theres just no rule saying any saves made by the cover provided by intervening models gets thrown upon the models that were in the way instead (since thats what would happen with this situation IRL).

Not always.

They could be friendly troops in the way and the firing unit would purposely aim higher than normal just to keep allies out of the kill zone.