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.

How far behind the Aegis Defense Line can i shoot at my opponent without yielding him a cover save of shooting through my defense line?

Depends. You'll need to get down and check.

This thread seems to come up every week.

It's down to true LOS. If, from the model's eyes, he can see more than 75% of the model wounded, no cover obtains. Of course, if the wounded model has cover from even ONE firing model in the unit, they get the save.

Most of the time I see opponents willing to agree that if you're in base contact with an Aegis, you can see clearly over it/through the slits.

*sigh That time of week again. *Resets watch

Seriously, someone should sticky one of these threads. please


Ok, Get down and look from the perspective of the firer. if the enemy models are 25% obscured by the ADL, they get the cover save. Just like all other non-area terrain. if the model is 25% blocked, it gets the cover save.

The model could be 50 miles away from the ADL, yes I mean that literally, and if it was 25% obscured it would get the cover save.

Thank you for the reply's. I tried searching for the answer for 20 minutes before i made the post with no strict answer.

No sweat Jeremy. The dakka search function is notoriously tricky to navigate. I only have about a 25% success rate with it myself.

In my inner circle of friends we also agreed on ignoring the TLOS for models in base contact with the aegis as another one suggested.

And yeah the search system is not quite easy to use, I don't blame you at all for making another post about aegis

It would be unfair not to mention that doing a Search for "Aegis Defence line" with the parameters of "only titles" and "YMDC"
reveals two threads concerning this very issue (in addition to this very thread) on the first page of the search-results alone.

Use of the Search should be mandatory....

Citabogue wrote:
In my inner circle of friends we also agreed on ignoring the TLOS for models in base contact with the aegis as another one suggested.

My friends and I do the same, and extend it to any other piece of terrain the model can reasonably see over.

 Cheexsta wrote:

Citabogue wrote:
In my inner circle of friends we also agreed on ignoring the TLOS for models in base contact with the aegis as another one suggested.

My friends and I do the same, and extend it to any other piece of terrain the model can reasonably see over.

Idem

I found this at warseer when 6th hit the shelves and it has proven of much help since then:

"I've done the math based on the low part of the Aegis (see pic below) and the target model must be at least 1.87 times further away from the shooter than the shooter is to the Aegis or the target will get a cover save. So for example, if a model (standard marine size here) is 1" away from the low part of the wall then the target must be further than 1.87" from the shooter or it'll get a cover save. I didn't do the math for the high part of the wall as it is taller than a standard marine and would always provide cover to a target if the shooting model is not in contact with the wall (and looking through the view hole thing). Personally I'd round the number to a factor of 2" to error in the side of the target and make the math easier (so if you're 2" from the wall your target must be at least 4" away to lose a cover save)."




Pretty much if you are behind the ADL measure the distance to it and the measure it from the ADL to the enemy model if the distance is less than twice yours then he gets the cover save, it is more than twice the distance he gets not.

That calculation is completely and utterly useless.

Put it out of your collective minds, and use the simple LOS-rules.

 Lord Yayula wrote:
Pretty much if you are behind the ADL measure the distance to it and the measure it from the ADL to the enemy model if the distance is less than twice yours then he gets the cover save, it is more than twice the distance he gets not.

Or you could just do what the rules say to do, and get down and have a look...

I've had multiple people insist that "behind the line means behind the line" so even with elevation, their gun-line (including entirely revealed models) had a cover save. I then informed them that my entire army was then also behind the line and subject to a save.

Then you show them the rules for cover saves in the rulebook, and ask where in the aegis rules an exception is made.

They won't find one.

Profit.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Seriously, someone should sticky one of these threads. please

perhaps some one should make a giant YMDC sticked FAQ and general conciseness.

Then we would just need to figure out how to get people to read stickies.

There has been a sticky in the 40K General board for several years now telling people to post rules queries in YMDC instead of in General. I still move several posts out of there every day.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lord Yayula wrote:
Pretty much if you are behind the ADL measure the distance to it and the measure it from the ADL to the enemy model if the distance is less than twice yours then he gets the cover save, it is more than twice the distance he gets not.

Or you could just do what the rules say to do, and get down and have a look...

Even when you get down and have a look you need to determine if the 25% of the model is obscured which is what the rules say, which is what math is for. Unless you already know exactly at which height on each model is the 25%.

Most people don't break out the calculators to determine cover. A rough eyeballed 'yeah, that looks like about 25%' is usually sufficient.

 insaniak wrote:
Most people don't break out the calculators to determine cover. A rough eyeballed 'yeah, that looks like about 25%' is usually sufficient.

This^

And when in doubt I tell my opponent it is close enough and take the cover save. It is the ethical, and sporting, thing to do.

The calculation is still utterly useless, and even worse, it might make people believe that the so called " rule of 1.87" " is always correct and applicable.


It. Is. not.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Most people don't break out the calculators to determine cover. A rough eyeballed 'yeah, that looks like about 25%' is usually sufficient.

This^

And when in doubt I tell my opponent it is close enough and take the cover save. It is the ethical, and sporting, thing to do.

I also believe that the book states to be liberal with it...if it looks like it might be 25%, then just go with it is.

Sporting is a great way to describe it.

Steelmage99 wrote:
The calculation is still utterly useless, and even worse, it might make people believe that the so called " rule of 1.87" " is always correct and applicable.


It. Is. not.

Yeah, there are a lot of unstated assumptions in that calculation (like firing model & target model being of exactly equal heights).

 Janthkin wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
The calculation is still utterly useless, and even worse, it might make people believe that the so called " rule of 1.87" " is always correct and applicable.


It. Is. not.

Yeah, there are a lot of unstated assumptions in that calculation (like firing model & target model being of exactly equal heights).

Yep, and the assumption that they are on the same plane of height.....and the assumption that 25% of the HEIGHT of the model equals 25% of the ACTUAL model (look at a Trygon, Warwalker etc.).

It is simply a flawed idea that can only lead to bad thinking. Also it enforces this strange notion of TLOS being difficult to use, and that a "carved-in-stone" answer that always applies is right there around the corner.

Also the assumption that the eyes of the firing model are always at the same height.

100% agreed with your conclusion.

Yup, this is one of those questions with two anwers:

Either you get down there, locate the model's eyes, and draw actual line of sight to the enemy model, or you and your opponent just come to a friendly agreement over it.

The first one is simple and straightforward, and doesn't really have any ambiguity.
except of course, it says eyes, and not helmet lenses, or eyeslits, or sensors, so anything without clearcut eyes is screwed
and it requires you to accurately judge 25% of the model
and it assumes you can actually get your head in there to determine line of sight
and takes forever, if you use a large unit of shooters.

While the second is choked with ambiguity, but will actually probably be what you really do in every game.

Da Butcha wrote:
The first one is simple and straightforward, and doesn't really have any ambiguity.
except of course, it says eyes, and not helmet lenses, or eyeslits, or sensors, so anything without clearcut eyes is screwed

It's really not, since most players choose to not be silly about it.

In actual practice, what players are actually drawing los from is the head, not the eyes. So not having visible eyes doesn't make a whole lot of difference.