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.

Sorry, put it in the first post, but of course:
-No between (swarms are all B2B)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
The thing is, if you say yes to this... What if the model firing, or even the model being shot at, was on a tile that puts him on an elevation that's 2cm taller than the elevation everyone else is at? What if that's 2 inches instead? Does it or does it not get a cover save because it's on a different plane of elevation?

I think this is a complete maybe.

I posted two pics from a firing models point of view. the top one is not firing though gaps in the unit, the bottom one is.

Basically when the models are on the table look at the firing models Line of Sight and determine of the shots are going over ot passing through gaps in the unit.

Except that this black/white rule of thumb essentially says that "hey, I'm standing on a plank that makes me 2mm taller, I can shoot over all intervening models now as I'm elevated" because there is no way of distinctly defining what is "firing over" and "firing in between" gaps based on height distinctions. What if the model is half firing over and half firing in between?

It is almost black and white:

Use the examples DeathReaper put up:
If the black line, from top of model to top of model covers even a fraction of the target: Cover save.

I say almost because if they are far apart, that black line that's easy to draw on a picture, is harder on the board.
And also would you include the Base of the model or not?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Basically this The red arrow is the shot and the pic denotes the line of sight the model firing has.
The first pic is no cover save, the second gets a cover save.

Ah, so Second does indeed get cover, however the example is a little different and Case 3:



Technically there is no in-between

Yes there is still an in-between in the pic you posted, this Carnifex will get the benefit of a cover save.

The red outlines the gaps between the models.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
The thing is, if you say yes to this... What if the model firing, or even the model being shot at, was on a tile that puts him on an elevation that's 2cm taller than the elevation everyone else is at? What if that's 2 inches instead? Does it or does it not get a cover save because it's on a different plane of elevation?

I think this is a complete maybe.

I posted two pics from a firing models point of view. the top one is not firing though gaps in the unit, the bottom one is.

Basically when the models are on the table look at the firing models Line of Sight and determine of the shots are going over ot passing through gaps in the unit.

Except that this black/white rule of thumb essentially says that "hey, I'm standing on a plank that makes me 2mm taller, I can shoot over all intervening models now as I'm elevated" because there is no way of distinctly defining what is "firing over" and "firing in between" gaps based on height distinctions. What if the model is half firing over and half firing in between?

Yes there is a way of distinctly defining what is "firing over" and "firing in between" gaps, you just get down and look at the firing model's Line of Sight. Compare it to my examples and you can tell if the model is firing over or firing in between the gaps.

It does not matter if they are standing on a hill or whatever, you check the firing model's Line of Sight , and if any of that Line of Sight would pass through a gap in the intervening unit to get to the target model then the target model would get a cover save.

If the model is firing completely over the gaps then there is no cover save for the target model.

If it goes through the gaps at all the target receives a cover save.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Basically this The red arrow is the shot and the pic denotes the line of sight the model firing has.

The first pic is no cover save, the second gets a cover save.

Excellent job with this, Deathreaper. I think this goes down as one of the best and most helpful posts I've ever seen you make on YMDC.

 DeathReaper wrote:

It does not matter if they are standing on a hill or whatever, you check the firing model's Line of Sight , and if any of that Line of Sight would pass through a gap in the intervening unit to get to the target model then the target model would get a cover save.

If the model is firing completely over the gaps then there is no cover save for the target model.

If it goes through the gaps at all the target receives a cover save.

So a Marine shooting a Zoanthrope with a row of Rippers in front of it... The Zoan won't receive a coversave then? What if it's a a Gaunt brood behind a Gaunt brood in a line, base-to-base? I can see between the intervening gaunt brood's legs to see the rear gaunt brood's legs... They can't claim cover, right? Doesn't that pretty much nullify the rule in the first place?

 Enigwolf wrote:
So a Marine shooting a Zoanthrope with a row of Rippers in front of it... The Zoan won't receive a coversave then?

It might, it might not, It all depends on the Line of Sight of the firing model(s)

What if it's a a Gaunt brood behind a Gaunt brood in a line, base-to-base? I can see between the intervening gaunt brood's legs to see the rear gaunt brood's legs... They can't claim cover, right?

It all depends on the Line of Sight of the firing model(s)

If the model is firing completely over the gaps then there is no cover save for the target model.

If it goes through the gaps at all the target receives a cover save

Doesn't that pretty much nullify the rule in the first place?

It all depends on the Line of Sight of the firing model(s)

Bottom line is that it is not something we are going to be able to give a Yes/No answer to as It all depends on the Line of Sight of the firing model(s) in question.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

It does not matter if they are standing on a hill or whatever, you check the firing model's Line of Sight , and if any of that Line of Sight would pass through a gap in the intervening unit to get to the target model then the target model would get a cover save.

If the model is firing completely over the gaps then there is no cover save for the target model.

If it goes through the gaps at all the target receives a cover save.

So a Marine shooting a Zoanthrope with a row of Rippers in front of it... The Zoan won't receive a coversave then? What if it's a a Gaunt brood behind a Gaunt brood in a line, base-to-base? I can see between the intervening gaunt brood's legs to see the rear gaunt brood's legs... They can't claim cover, right? Doesn't that pretty much nullify the rule in the first place?

Enigwolf, this is the line of Black to White:


If the Carnifex is any closer, or the marine further, he gets a cover save. Carnifex any further, marine any closer, then no cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Basically this The red arrow is the shot and the pic denotes the line of sight the model firing has.
The first pic is no cover save, the second gets a cover save.

Ah, so Second does indeed get cover, however the example is a little different and Case 3:



Technically there is no in-between

Yes there is still an in-between in the pic you posted, this Carnifex will get the benefit of a cover save.

The red outlines the gaps between the models.

So the 25% rule for LoS never applies in this case?

What if they cover just the base, would it still count? see image of mine above

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

It does not matter if they are standing on a hill or whatever, you check the firing model's Line of Sight , and if any of that Line of Sight would pass through a gap in the intervening unit to get to the target model then the target model would get a cover save.

If the model is firing completely over the gaps then there is no cover save for the target model.

If it goes through the gaps at all the target receives a cover save.

So a Marine shooting a Zoanthrope with a row of Rippers in front of it... The Zoan won't receive a coversave then? What if it's a a Gaunt brood behind a Gaunt brood in a line, base-to-base? I can see between the intervening gaunt brood's legs to see the rear gaunt brood's legs... They can't claim cover, right? Doesn't that pretty much nullify the rule in the first place?

Enigwolf, this is the line of Black to White:


If the Carnifex is any closer, or the marine further, he gets a cover save. Carnifex any further, marine any closer, then no cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Basically this The red arrow is the shot and the pic denotes the line of sight the model firing has.
The first pic is no cover save, the second gets a cover save.

Ah, so Second does indeed get cover, however the example is a little different and Case 3:



Technically there is no in-between

Yes there is still an in-between in the pic you posted, this Carnifex will get the benefit of a cover save.

The red outlines the gaps between the models.

So the 25% rule for LoS never applies in this case?

What if they cover just the base, would it still count? see image of mine above

That part was clear enough to me. I apologize, my question was more along the lines of, "what if it's just the base"?

It seems like only the body of the model counts.

Intervening Models section talks about "If a target is partially obscured from the firer" and we know that a target cam be any part of the model's body.

If only the base is visible you do not have Line of Sight to that model.

From the Line of Sight rules: "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body."

Well..... to disagree here...

In the shooting section, under Cover Saves:
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover."

Please note, any model partially hidden, even by 5%, is "known as being in cover"

Under Determining cover saves:
"If... the target model’s body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save."

So, it is clear that when dealing with terrain, a model can known as 'in cover' but not get a cover save. You have be at least 25% 'in cover' to get a cover save.


Now intervening models:
"If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit, it receives a 5 + cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

Please note "in the same way". Terrain requires that the target is 25% obscured... so intervening models require the "same" thing.

But what about:
"Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer."

This is analogous to the first rule quote above.... shooting between the models is 'known as being in cover' This does not alleviate the requirement of being 25% obscured. It just means that the space between the models also counts towards that obscurement just as much as the models themselves.






Now, for those that say otherwise, I have a scenario for you...


A brood of 20 gaunts are in a blob in front of a Fex. A single MEq models wants to shoot at the fex, the fex is obscured by 15%, and there are *no gaps* between models because there are just so many models....
Cover save...??

coredump wrote:
Well..... to disagree here...

In the shooting section, under Cover Saves:
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover."

Please note, any model partially hidden, even by 5%, is "known as being in cover"

Under Determining cover saves:
"If... the target model’s body is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save."

So, it is clear that when dealing with terrain, a model can known as 'in cover' but not get a cover save. You have be at least 25% 'in cover' to get a cover save.


Now intervening models:
"If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit, it receives a 5 + cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

Please note "in the same way". Terrain requires that the target is 25% obscured... so intervening models require the "same" thing.

But what about:
"Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer."

This is analogous to the first rule quote above.... shooting between the models is 'known as being in cover' This does not alleviate the requirement of being 25% obscured. It just means that the space between the models also counts towards that obscurement just as much as the models themselves.






Now, for those that say otherwise, I have a scenario for you...


A brood of 20 gaunts are in a blob in front of a Fex. A single MEq models wants to shoot at the fex, the fex is obscured by 15%, and there are *no gaps* between models because there are just so many models....
Cover save...??

Ding-ding-ding. We have a winner. But I have no idea about your point.

Since it's TLOS unless the models are literally right next to each other (not just the bases) you are shooting through the gaps between models.

rigeld2 wrote:
Since it's TLOS unless the models are literally right next to each other (not just the bases) you are shooting through the gaps between models.

coredump wrote:
and there are *no gaps* between models because there are just so many models....
Cover save...??

No i get his point here, and his example i tried to show below:
No spaces (or assume none) - less than 25%. The rippers are just behind each other. (His 20 gaunts)
Cover save?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

coredump wrote:
This is analogous to the first rule quote above.... shooting between the models is 'known as being in cover' This does not alleviate the requirement of being 25% obscured. It just means that the space between the models also counts towards that obscurement just as much as the models themselves.

And this is the part that i would actually support: The rules describe how spaces "count" rather than "overriding" the 25% requirement. Thoughts?

I still see a gap BlackTalos, but if something like this were to exist, without gaps, I would let my opponent with the Fex take a cover save.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I still see a gap BlackTalos, but if something like this were to exist, without gaps, I would let my opponent with the Fex take a cover save.

Yep, full agreement.

Yes yes yes.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I still see a gap BlackTalos, but if something like this were to exist, without gaps, I would let my opponent with the Fex take a cover save.

Can't disagree per rules you've quoted, but the 25% minimum still buggs me....

I am going to play it that the gaps dont have infinite height. Rather they are the height of the models. So if I can draw LOS any part of the opposing model without passing through that gap I would say no cover

 BlackTalos wrote:
Can't disagree per rules you've quoted, but the 25% minimum still buggs me....

True, that feels very confusing as it would possibly give a <insert big thing> a cover save from hiding behind Boyz.

We had a very long and heavy discussion about this a few months ago with good arguments from both sides, though that was for 6t ed.
I remember we almost started WW3 before it got closed down.
So my advice would be - when playing with friends - to ask this beforehand.

 Leth wrote:
I am going to play it that the gaps dont have infinite height. Rather they are the height of the models. So if I can draw LOS any part of the opposing model without passing through that gap I would say no cover

No we all agreed to that already, as per DeathReaper's first set of pictures.

The issue is when the "height of the model" still covers the target, but less than 25%. Well not really an issue, but a feeling of in-correctness.

 Leth wrote:
I am going to play it that the gaps dont have infinite height. Rather they are the height of the models. So if I can draw LOS any part of the opposing model without passing through that gap I would say no cover

?? So if you can see the head without going through a gap, no cover? Seems to be what you are saying. Should be the reverse, if any part is visible between two gaps, it gets cover, regardless of what you can see for the rest of the model.
Or are you saying that if you can see the entire model without going through a gap, then no cover (which as BT points out, is already discussed and agreed upon.)?