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.

After looking over the cover save rules I believe that members of the same squad grant cover saves to eachother(when applicable). I have never seen anyone ever use the rule this way and I think it is a leftover mentality from previous editions, however as per pg 18, any model's body that is at least 25% covered is entitled to a cover save. On top of this it says this applies if this is from the view of at least one of the firers.

The only realy arguments against this I can see are inferred fromthe Intervening Models section on pg 18 and the explanation of the diagram on pg 19 where they show orks in the open, 5+, and 4+ cover. There is an Ork which is clearly behind another(in the open) but is not shown as being given a cover save. In the Interveneing models section the issue is that it merely states that a target (squad?) needs to be partially hidden and this explanation is expanded upon to even say this applies even if the model is completely visible. This is discussing a squad getting a cover save based on a 3rd squad being the source of obscurement not the basic rule of 25%. The only situation where cover is not granted is from other members of the squad which is firing(pg 18 again).

Keep in mind that these are all for a single squad firing, after a squad has finished firing and wounds are resolved the new snapshot of the sitaution is formed and covers would need to be adjusted based on who is standing.

Situations:
- A taget squad completely encircled by a shooting squad which is out in the open would get covered saves. (lets say a 20 Plague marines with bolters completely surround 5 termagaunts, since all the termagaunts are at least 25% covered by another termagaunt to the view of at least 1 firerer they all would be entitled to a cover save)
- 35 Cultists out in the open lets say someone ordely in a 5 man front, 7 deep box with the important stuff in the 2nd row. A Shooting squad which is in front of them and chooses to focus fire, is able to skip applying wounds to the first row and instead is able to shoot the important models first as well as preserve the first line for easier assaulting.

At first I was incluined to think this might just be a rules exploit however with RAW, it does line up with real life a bit whihc lead me to believe that some of it may have been RAI. The bodies in the front row of a mob do provide cover for those behind them so there is some logic to it. The logic breaks down a bit when using it to focus fire, but still, it could have been their intent. This could be very useful for horde armies caught out in the open, but yet it seems no one has even brought it up in any group I play with.

Am I missing another rule somewhere, or can squads provide cover for themselves?

I don't have the BRB on me, but doesn't it specifically say you never get a cover save from models in your own squad?

Note that the intervening models bit on page 18 specifically spells out "models not from the firer's unit OR FROM THE TARGET UNIT". Even the first line says "models from a third unit" and it is bolded.....................

So no, your own unit does not grant cover saves.

Right, it talkes about what you do if there are models from a thrid unit in the way, even specifying that models that have no obscurment are granted the save.

They included that to prevent you from making a semi-cicle away from an enemy unit and claiming that everyone but the front 2 models get cover saves.

None of this overrides the basic 25% obscurement = cover save under Determining Cover Saves.

To address the exact same squad statement "...models can always shoot through members of their own unit without conferring or recieving a cover save."
Since the unit being shot at is not "shooting thorugh" it wouldn't apply.

pk1 wrote:
- 35 Cultists out in the open lets say someone ordely in a 5 man front, 7 deep box with the important stuff in the 2nd row. A Shooting squad which is in front of them and chooses to focus fire, is able to skip applying wounds to the first row and instead is able to shoot the important models first as well as preserve the first line for easier assaulting.

Even if your main point is correct (I'm not convinced it is) this isn't true.
Focus Fire allows you to hit a specific cover save or worse.
So you'd FF for 5+ and be allowed to allocate those wounds to any model with a 5+, 6+, or - cover save... which the models in front have.

pk1 wrote:
Right, it talkes about what you do if there are models from a thrid unit in the way, even specifying that models that have no obscurment are granted the save.

They included that to prevent you from making a semi-cicle away from an enemy unit and claiming that everyone but the front 2 models get cover saves.

None of this overrides the basic 25% obscurement = cover save under Determining Cover Saves.

To address the exact same squad statement "...models can always shoot through members of their own unit without conferring or recieving a cover save."
Since the unit being shot at is not "shooting thorugh" it wouldn't apply.

Well basic rules remove this issue: You assign Wounds from the front of your unit. That front model makes a save - cannot be a cover from his guys because he's in front. And you keep resolving until you are out of wounds.

Not once in this method has the model with allocated wound been behind another.

 BlackTalos wrote:

pk1 wrote:
Right, it talkes about what you do if there are models from a thrid unit in the way, even specifying that models that have no obscurment are granted the save.

They included that to prevent you from making a semi-cicle away from an enemy unit and claiming that everyone but the front 2 models get cover saves.

None of this overrides the basic 25% obscurement = cover save under Determining Cover Saves.

To address the exact same squad statement "...models can always shoot through members of their own unit without conferring or recieving a cover save."
Since the unit being shot at is not "shooting thorugh" it wouldn't apply.

Well basic rules remove this issue: You assign Wounds from the front of your unit. That front model makes a save - cannot be a cover from his guys because he's in front. And you keep resolving until you are out of wounds.

Not once in this method has the model with allocated wound been behind another.

Except you determine cover saves from the LoS from all shooting models.

So in his encircled Termagant example, they'd all have cover saves.

Cover is granted by obscurement which talks about terrain or by other models from a third unit. In your scenarios you have neither. So no cover saves.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

pk1 wrote:
Right, it talkes about what you do if there are models from a thrid unit in the way, even specifying that models that have no obscurment are granted the save.

They included that to prevent you from making a semi-cicle away from an enemy unit and claiming that everyone but the front 2 models get cover saves.

None of this overrides the basic 25% obscurement = cover save under Determining Cover Saves.

To address the exact same squad statement "...models can always shoot through members of their own unit without conferring or recieving a cover save."
Since the unit being shot at is not "shooting thorugh" it wouldn't apply.

Well basic rules remove this issue: You assign Wounds from the front of your unit. That front model makes a save - cannot be a cover from his guys because he's in front. And you keep resolving until you are out of wounds.

Not once in this method has the model with allocated wound been behind another.

Except you determine cover saves from the LoS from all shooting models.

So in his encircled Termagant example, they'd all have cover saves.

For the termagaunts they are all getting saves based on the 25% rule, not a 3rd squad. Also keep in mind that the rules specifcly say that you get a save if ANY of the firers have an obscured shot(pg 18 under Determining Cover Saves). So for the Termagaunts, FF doesn't play into it, but in the cultists mass, the front models have no cover saves so FF would skip them. Declaring 5+ means the wounds would start applying in the 2nd row. Also at some point in that mass its likely that some models would be completely obscured so they would be immune to wounds, but that would be in the 3rd row or later.

pk1 wrote:
[but in the cultists mass, the front models have no cover saves so FF would skip them. Declaring 5+ means the wounds would start applying in the 2nd row. Also at some point in that mass its likely that some models would be completely obscured so they would be immune to wounds, but that would be in the 3rd row or later.

Again, your focus fire example is incorrect - read the actual rules on it please.
And no, by the time wounds would be allocated there it wouldn't be obscured.

I don't see any issue with FF. The wound pool will only apply to models with a cover save, the front row does not get a cover so it remains untouched.

Also remember that all shooting for a squad is simultaneous(pg 13), so regardless of the order which mdoels are removed, the cover saves would not change.

pk1 wrote:
I don't see any issue with FF. The wound pool will only apply to models with a cover save, the front row does not get a cover so it remains untouched.

FF clearly states that you declare a save value, and then all models with that save OR WORSE are affected. To get to the second row, you'd declare a 5+ value. Since the models in the front row have no save at all, they would be affected.

pk1 wrote:
I don't see any issue with FF. The wound pool will only apply to models with a cover save, the front row does not get a cover so it remains untouched.

Also remember that all shooting for a squad is simultaneous(pg 13), so regardless of the order which mdoels are removed, the cover saves would not change.

Ahem. Example on page 19 disagrees with you. "if you declare focus fire on a cover save of 4+, Wounds can only be allocated to models with a cover save of 4+, 5+, 6+ OR NO COVER SAVE AT ALL."

pk1 wrote:
I don't see any issue with FF. The wound pool will only apply to models with a cover save, the front row does not get a cover so it remains untouched.

So you failed to read the rules? Cool story bro.

Also remember that all shooting for a squad is simultaneous(pg 13), so regardless of the order which mdoels are removed, the cover saves would not change.

Incorrect. All shooting is simultaneous, but the resolution of that shooting is not.

rigeld2 wrote:

pk1 wrote:
I don't see any issue with FF. The wound pool will only apply to models with a cover save, the front row does not get a cover so it remains untouched.

So you failed to read the rules? Cool story bro.

Also remember that all shooting for a squad is simultaneous(pg 13), so regardless of the order which mdoels are removed, the cover saves would not change.

Incorrect. All shooting is simultaneous, but the resolution of that shooting is not.

I read the rules and quoting pages to help back it up. You are suggesting things with no source.

The wound pools are created by the simultaneous shooting. You don't get to shift wounds from 1 pool to another at will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 don_mondo wrote:

pk1 wrote:
I don't see any issue with FF. The wound pool will only apply to models with a cover save, the front row does not get a cover so it remains untouched.

Also remember that all shooting for a squad is simultaneous(pg 13), so regardless of the order which mdoels are removed, the cover saves would not change.

Ahem. Example on page 19 disagrees with you. "if you declare focus fire on a cover save of 4+, Wounds can only be allocated to models with a cover save of 4+, 5+, 6+ OR NO COVER SAVE AT ALL."

Yes, I see that part couldn't happen then since the wounds would still have to go to the front rank. I guess I was thinking it could create holes in a unit, but I guess it won't in that situation.

pk1 wrote:


Situations:
- A taget squad completely encircled by a shooting squad which is out in the open would get covered saves. (lets say a 20 Plague marines with bolters completely surround 5 termagaunts, since all the termagaunts are at least 25% covered by another termagaunt to the view of at least 1 firerer they all would be entitled to a cover save)

- 35 Cultists out in the open lets say someone ordely in a 5 man front, 7 deep box with the important stuff in the 2nd row. A Shooting squad which is in front of them and chooses to focus fire, is able to skip applying wounds to the first row and instead is able to shoot the important models first as well as preserve the first line for easier assaulting.

At first I was incluined to think this might just be a rules exploit however with RAW, it does line up with real life a bit whihc lead me to believe that some of it may have been RAI. The bodies in the front row of a mob do provide cover for those behind them so there is some logic to it. The logic breaks down a bit when using it to focus fire, but still, it could have been their intent. This could be very useful for horde armies caught out in the open, but yet it seems no one has even brought it up in any group I play with.

Am I missing another rule somewhere, or can squads provide cover for themselves?

The first question is: how would a model get cover from model's in it's own unit? To Determine whether a cover save exists, the model would have to be 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer (pg 18). Let's assume this is the case.

To determine the type of save received, you have to look at what the model is hiding behind. The Cover Chart does not list "units", "models" or any other type of item that has anything at all to do with models from the target unit providing cover to other models within the same target unit. We have two other hints as to what GW considers to be cover. The first sentence under cover saves uses the words "by terrain" indicating that the cover rules apply to models being hidden by terrain. Further, the bit about discussing with your opponent is pretty clear that they are talking about Terrain pieces - "Terrain" is used within that sentence. Next, they state that "other examples" can be found on pg 90...which is titled "Types of Terrain" and we know that units/models are not terrain.

The only exception to cover being provided only by terrain is in the Intervening Models section. However Intervening Models is very explicit that there has to be a Third unit blocking view and even states that models in the firer and target unit don't count. So those rules don't apply.

To sum up:
- The basic rule for being "in cover" requires a terrain piece to block LoS, requires 25% LoS blocking (pg 18).
- Exception exists for Going to Ground in the open to get cover (pg 18).
- Exception to LoS requirements for being inside the boundaries for Area Terrain (pg 91).
- Other than the exception granted for units other than the firer and target (pg 18), no other rule grants the ability to use models for cover.


Result: Because 40k is a permissive ruleset and we can find no permission to use models in your own unit as cover then the only possible answer is No, models in your unit can not grant a cover save. FF doesn't even play a part in this.

clively wrote:

pk1 wrote:


Situations:
- A taget squad completely encircled by a shooting squad which is out in the open would get covered saves. (lets say a 20 Plague marines with bolters completely surround 5 termagaunts, since all the termagaunts are at least 25% covered by another termagaunt to the view of at least 1 firerer they all would be entitled to a cover save)

- 35 Cultists out in the open lets say someone ordely in a 5 man front, 7 deep box with the important stuff in the 2nd row. A Shooting squad which is in front of them and chooses to focus fire, is able to skip applying wounds to the first row and instead is able to shoot the important models first as well as preserve the first line for easier assaulting.

At first I was incluined to think this might just be a rules exploit however with RAW, it does line up with real life a bit whihc lead me to believe that some of it may have been RAI. The bodies in the front row of a mob do provide cover for those behind them so there is some logic to it. The logic breaks down a bit when using it to focus fire, but still, it could have been their intent. This could be very useful for horde armies caught out in the open, but yet it seems no one has even brought it up in any group I play with.

Am I missing another rule somewhere, or can squads provide cover for themselves?

The first question is: how would a model get cover from model's in it's own unit? To Determine whether a cover save exists, the model would have to be 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer (pg 18). Let's assume this is the case.

To determine the type of save received, you have to look at what the model is hiding behind. The Cover Chart does not list "units", "models" or any other type of item that has anything at all to do with models from the target unit providing cover to other models within the same target unit. We have two other hints as to what GW considers to be cover. The first sentence under cover saves uses the words "by terrain" indicating that the cover rules apply to models being hidden by terrain. Further, the bit about discussing with your opponent is pretty clear that they are talking about Terrain pieces - "Terrain" is used within that sentence. Next, they state that "other examples" can be found on pg 90...which is titled "Types of Terrain" and we know that units/models are not terrain.

The only exception to cover being provided only by terrain is in the Intervening Models section. However Intervening Models is very explicit that there has to be a Third unit blocking view and even states that models in the firer and target unit don't count. So those rules don't apply.

To sum up:
- The basic rule for being "in cover" requires a terrain piece to block LoS, requires 25% LoS blocking (pg 18).
- Exception exists for Going to Ground in the open to get cover (pg 18).
- Exception to LoS requirements for being inside the boundaries for Area Terrain (pg 91).
- Other than the exception granted for units other than the firer and target (pg 18), no other rule grants the ability to use models for cover.


Result: Because 40k is a permissive ruleset and we can find no permission to use models in your own unit as cover then the only possible answer is No, models in your unit can not grant a cover save. FF doesn't even play a part in this.

I like your logic, I was looking at the 25% as being a different requirement because the intervening models section is discussing a 3rd unit and the specifics in how that changes(really lowers the bar quite a bit) getting cover saves. The real issue for me was a lack of a coresponding line that specifically disallows the same unit in the same way they spell it out for the shooting unit.

The FF discussion was secondary, as a way to possibly target parts of a unit should you be able to provide cover within a unit for its self. It wasn't intended to be a main talking point.

pk1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

pk1 wrote:
I don't see any issue with FF. The wound pool will only apply to models with a cover save, the front row does not get a cover so it remains untouched.

So you failed to read the rules? Cool story bro.

Also remember that all shooting for a squad is simultaneous(pg 13), so regardless of the order which mdoels are removed, the cover saves would not change.

Incorrect. All shooting is simultaneous, but the resolution of that shooting is not.

I read the rules and quoting pages to help back it up. You are suggesting things with no source.

"the FF rules" would be the source. The ones that prove your statement incorrect.
Since I'm now at my books, I'll do you a favor and quote it.

Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse (i.e a higher value) than the value stated.

Is - a worse value than 5+? Oh - it is. Darn. That proves your "tactic" null.

The wound pools are created by the simultaneous shooting. You don't get to shift wounds from 1 pool to another at will.

What? I've never said that the wound pool changes. Where did you get that from?

rigeld2 wrote:

pk1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

pk1 wrote:
I don't see any issue with FF. The wound pool will only apply to models with a cover save, the front row does not get a cover so it remains untouched.

So you failed to read the rules? Cool story bro.

Also remember that all shooting for a squad is simultaneous(pg 13), so regardless of the order which mdoels are removed, the cover saves would not change.

Incorrect. All shooting is simultaneous, but the resolution of that shooting is not.

I read the rules and quoting pages to help back it up. You are suggesting things with no source.

"the FF rules" would be the source. The ones that prove your statement incorrect.
Since I'm now at my books, I'll do you a favor and quote it.

Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse (i.e a higher value) than the value stated.

Is - a worse value than 5+? Oh - it is. Darn. That proves your "tactic" null.

The wound pools are created by the simultaneous shooting. You don't get to shift wounds from 1 pool to another at will.

What? I've never said that the wound pool changes. Where did you get that from?

All shooting is simultaneous, but the resolution of that shooting is not.

Saying the resolution of shooting is not means that you would be shifting wounds between pools, not sure what other meaning it could have.

Yes, I was off on my original reading of the rule because my idea of worse seems to differe from GW's idea of worse. Keep in mind that was a secondary point about how that could influence the game. There are other ways it could still be used if I set the example up differently but since it seems my question was answered its not really an issue.

pk1 wrote:

All shooting is simultaneous, but the resolution of that shooting is not.

Saying the resolution of shooting is not means that you would be shifting wounds between pools, not sure what other meaning it could have.

Then you have no idea what a wound pool is.
A wound pool is made up of all wounds that a unit has suffered, prior to allocating them.
You allocate a wound, it gets resolved. You continue until the pool is empty. There are no multiple pools to move wounds between. You don't attach cover saves to wounds in the wound pool.

In short, I have absolutely no idea what you're actually trying to say here. Please elaborate using actual rules.

At a guess, he's talking about the Mixed Wounds groups within the Wound Pool.

pk1 wrote:

I like your logic, I was looking at the 25% as being a different requirement because the intervening models section is discussing a 3rd unit and the specifics in how that changes(really lowers the bar quite a bit) getting cover saves. The real issue for me was a lack of a coresponding line that specifically disallows the same unit in the same way they spell it out for the shooting unit.

The FF discussion was secondary, as a way to possibly target parts of a unit should you be able to provide cover within a unit for its self. It wasn't intended to be a main talking point.

Your 25% obscured is null, because your quoting the section that refers to terrain. Models are not terrain. They have their own section which requires a third unit.