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 for example, i know if you're in area terrain and your opponent is not, you get cover but they do not, assuming you're shooting at each other.
If you're in ruins and they're not, same thing.
If you're behind a ruin, and they're on the other side, you probably both give eachother cover depending on LoS.
For an ADL:
1) how close to the ADL do you have to be to claim cover from it without granting the opponent cover
2) does this change if it is a dilapidated ADL on the field, not a fortification in either army?

1) Close enough to be 25% obscured while your opponent is less than 25% obscured. Get down and look. Only way to tell.

2) No! In fact it makes no difference with ANY type of cover that isn't Area Terrain. You must be 25% or more obscured to get the cover save. Get down and look to see if this is the case.

Okay. for some reason i had it in my brain that an ADL was somehow special, but as it's not based terrain, I guess its basically a 4+ chest high wall.

so in the event of a very tall monster, say a riptide, being behind an ADL, its not ever gonna get a save, right? cause it'll only be obscured up to its ankles

Depends. What if the ADL is on a tall hill?

It is possible for any piece of terrain to give cover to anything. It is entirely dependent on the actual terrain situation. I can block the sun from my view with a penny.

Now, if the ADL is on flat ground and the Riptide is right behind it, it is very unlikely that its getting cover. But its not impossible. 25% coverage is all that is needed.


I'm being obtuse to illustrate the point. 25% coverage is all that is required. Check at the time the save would be taken to see if it gets one.

Why would you treat the ADL any differently than a ruin wall?

However, someone previously did the math. Based on models being 1.5" tall, it's a 1:1.7 ratio., 1:2 to be safe. Meaning, if your model is at the wall, and the target is 2 inches away form it, you can see his toes without obscurement. So if your model is 2" behind the wall, then the target needs to be 4" away to see his toes and negate his cover claim.

That math only works if you assume both models in question are almost exactly the same.

And you can easily figure out the answer simply by getting down and looking. No complicated math necessary.

I like that math, it's a easy way to do it for things like SM,CSM,Fire warriors, Necron Warrior, etc
especially in the middle of a terrain-dense board where its not easy to get to model eye level

Exactly. It's not always perfect, but is a lot quicker for most troop on troop encounters.

Technically, providing theres no elevation involved or larger model shooting, an ADL in the middle of the table between 2 units 40" away will still provide cover if theyre still 25% covered when you go down to eye-to-eye level.

Noone ever plays that way though because its really really easy to be in the wrong position and draw LOS wrong, since face it bringing your face down that low isnt easy without bumping stuff. Only time i pull this is when its something like "HA! I can see his arm around the corner!" even though im like 10" behind the object, since then its easy to say for sure im covered.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Depends. What if the ADL is on a tall hill?

Considering that can not happen without house rules then there is no issue.

You have to place fortifications first, then you place terrain and none of it can be within 3 inches of another terrain piece.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Considering that can not happen without house rules then there is no issue.

You have to place fortifications first, then you place terrain and none of it can be within 3 inches of another terrain piece.

Unless you have a table (like the GW ROB board) with built-in hills.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Considering that can not happen without house rules then there is no issue.

You have to place fortifications first, then you place terrain and none of it can be within 3 inches of another terrain piece.

Unless you have a table (like the GW ROB board) with built-in hills.

Exactly, house rules.

Using the RoB board, or any board with built in terrain, is a House Rule?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Exactly, house rules.

Would you like to cite the exact rule that specifies that 40k requires a perfectly flat surface before terrain is placed? Or are you just using "house rule" to mean "anything that could be at all different between two games" instead of the correct definition of "change in the rules preferred by a certain group"?

Because it does not specify that the battlefield has hills before you place terrain, so it does not. as per the permissive ruleset.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because it does not specify that the battlefield has hills before you place terrain, so it does not. as per the permissive ruleset.

And it does not specify that the battlefield is flat. You're the one assuming that the default is a perfectly flat surface and any deviation from it needs permission.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Technically, providing theres no elevation involved or larger model shooting, an ADL in the middle of the table between 2 units 40" away will still provide cover if theyre still 25% covered when you go down to eye-to-eye level.

Noone ever plays that way though because its really really easy to be in the wrong position and draw LOS wrong, since face it bringing your face down that low isnt easy without bumping stuff...

No idea where you're playing, but from my experience most players do play that way, because it's what the rules say to do. Drawing LOS from the model's eye view is how it has worked for 20 years now.

 insaniak wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Technically, providing theres no elevation involved or larger model shooting, an ADL in the middle of the table between 2 units 40" away will still provide cover if theyre still 25% covered when you go down to eye-to-eye level.

Noone ever plays that way though because its really really easy to be in the wrong position and draw LOS wrong, since face it bringing your face down that low isnt easy without bumping stuff...

No idea where you're playing, but from my experience most players do play that way, because it's what the rules say to do. Drawing LOS from the model's eye view is how it has worked for 20 years now.

Even the rulebook says that is how you would figure out the LOS of models. Alternatively, get a stick or something, point one end on the model's head, and the other end towards whatever you are looking at.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because it does not specify that the battlefield has hills before you place terrain, so it does not. as per the permissive ruleset.

 deviantduck wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because it does not specify that the battlefield has hills before you place terrain, so it does not. as per the permissive ruleset.

By your response, You seem to not understand the permissive ruleset.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because it does not specify that the battlefield has hills before you place terrain, so it does not. as per the permissive ruleset.

And it does not specify that the battlefield is flat. You're the one assuming that the default is a perfectly flat surface and any deviation from it needs permission.

Well when they talk about a playing surface and the table, then yes most tables are falt, and the permissive ruleset would have to say it is not flat, as most tables are flat. (Or boards for that matter).

"If you are using Dawn of War deployment zones the board is divided into two equal halves across its length." (119)

The aegis defence line also has those vieuwing ports to make it easier for models behind it to draw line of sight from the eyes to an enemy without beeing obscured .

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If you are using Dawn of War deployment zones the board is divided into two equal halves across its length." (119)

To continue down the path that deathreaper is traversing, it is obvious the BRB is referring to the verb form of the word. "to take one's meals, or be supplied with food and lodging at a fixed price". It's the only logical definition. Food is served on a plate, and plates are typically round creating hills that would elevate the ADL.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well when they talk about a playing surface and the table, then yes most tables are falt, and the permissive ruleset would have to say it is not flat, as most tables are flat. (Or boards for that matter).

"If you are using Dawn of War deployment zones the board is divided into two equal halves across its length." (119)

And this assumption that a table is flat is directly contradicted by GW selling a ROB table for 40k that is NOT flat, and using it over and over again in pictures in the rulebook. Your assumption that "most" tables are flat therefore you need permission to use a table that isn't flat is entirely your own invention.

Not an invention, check out what a board is, as board is not defined in the BRB then we use the common English definition.

Which clearly is:

"1a long, thin, flat piece of wood or other hard material, used for floors or other building purposes:"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/board?q=Board

(This is in accordance with the tenets as you are using a word "incorrectly in a very obvious manner" (Tenets of YMDC)




6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Sigh.

This is a Citadel Realm of Battle GameBOARD: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440158a&prodId=prod730814 . Notice that it is not flat. Notice that this clearly means the word "board" in this context can be used to describe an object that is not necessarily flat. Notice that once again your dictionary argument fails.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not an invention, check out what a board is, as board is not defined in the BRB then we use the common English definition.

Which clearly is:

"1a long, thin, flat piece of wood or other hard material, used for floors or other building purposes:"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/board?q=Board

(This is in accordance with the tenets as you are using a word "incorrectly in a very obvious manner" (Tenets of YMDC)




6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

So how flat does it need to be? No board is perfectly flat, so any board you use is apparently illegal by your RAW. Likewise it would have to be a single piece of wood since it is mentioned in the singular, so any surface made by gluing multiple boards together (such as a table) is illegal as well.

...or you can realize that "board" is short for "gameboard" when taken in context.

gameboard

noun
a flat portable surface (usually rectangular) designed for board games; "he got out the board and set up the pieces" [syn: board]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gameboard

...which is exactly why that tenet you quoted exists.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh.

This is a Citadel Realm of Battle GameBOARD: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440158a&prodId=prod730814 . Notice that it is not flat. Notice that this clearly means the word "board" in this context can be used to describe an object that is not necessarily flat. Notice that once again your dictionary argument fails.

Sigh,

The description on the website Does not = rules...

It really does not fall short, see the definition of gameboard below...

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not an invention, check out what a board is, as board is not defined in the BRB then we use the common English definition.

Which clearly is:

"1a long, thin, flat piece of wood or other hard material, used for floors or other building purposes:"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/board?q=Board

(This is in accordance with the tenets as you are using a word "incorrectly in a very obvious manner" (Tenets of YMDC)




6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

So how flat does it need to be? No board is perfectly flat, so any board you use is apparently illegal by your RAW. Likewise it would have to be a single piece of wood since it is mentioned in the singular, so any surface made by gluing multiple boards together (such as a table) is illegal as well.

...or you can realize that "board" is short for "gameboard" when taken in context.

gameboard

noun
a flat portable surface (usually rectangular) designed for board games; "he got out the board and set up the pieces" [syn: board]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gameboard

...which is exactly why that tenet you quoted exists.

emphasis mine.

Notice how that says flat as well. Perfectly flat? Well that is virtually an impossibility, in practice a variance of 3% should suffice.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The description on the website Does not = rules...

No, but it clearly establishes that GW uses the word "board" to include objects that are not flat, specifically the ROB board. The fact that you found a dictionary definition that includes "flat" does not change this fact. All you're doing is the equivalent of arguing that because GW uses the word "codexes" they are referring to something that doesn't exist (the correct word is "codices") and we aren't allowed to use those books we think we're supposed to use to play the game.

Notice how that says flat as well. Perfectly flat? Well that is virtually an impossibility, in practice a variance of 3% should suffice.

Citation for this 3% please. Not even your dictionary definition includes a specific number.

Generally, at least in my area, it's assumed that a model touching the Aegis Line can see through it clearly enough and stick their guns through the slits and over the edge, thus preventing anyone on the other side from claiming a cover save from the wall. Think of holding a piece of paper with a small hole in it at arm's length...it's tough to see anything through the hole. But move the hole close to your eye, and voila! You can see everything through it unobstructed.

As far as models further back than that, it's much more subject to house rules unless you have a micro camera you can place at the model's view. That would be pretty neat though!

If anything, wouldn't the GW model be the default? I seem to recall someone frequently quoting "this game uses Citadel models" as being a rule, and the Realm of Battle boards certainly appear to be a scale model of a hill with some weird pit of skulls.