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.

Coredump,
Right now I am not entirely sure what you consider to be a Rule debate right now, because what you post here doesn't make any real sense. You start by claiming that Line of Sight can be used to validate a measurement and then claiming I need to provide a Rule that proves it can not be used such a way is not the way Rules work. If you wish to apply Line of Sight to something other then determining Line of Sight, it is up to you to quote a Rule that grants you permission to do so. But if you want me to explain a basic Rule like Line of Sight, lets see what it actually states it is used for:

Line of sight determines what a model can ‘see’.
Very first sentence informs us what it is used to determine, if a model can 'see' it's surrounding, and from there it gives us a bunch of examples I have not listed here... nothing about elevation.

Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy
While it grants permission to 'see' enemy over the head of others, this doesn't mention anything about Elevation or using it to determine such a thing. It is part of the core for the whole 'can by pass this by going over-top of the Unit as a whole,' but it still has a little issue being that the shot itself is what is being evaluated by that Rule, whatever that might be. So surprising then that there still is nothing in here about using Line of Sight to determine if the Shot itself is travelling along an elevated position.

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.
Nothing here about stating you can use Line of Sight to measure anything other then to determine if the Line itself is blocked between point A and B, as evident by the requirement for it to be a straight line. This is why I described it as a boolean, though it probably isn't the best of words to used, because it informs us only if that straight line is intercepted by something. That process can allow to determine key amounts of obstruction, so I do regret using the word boolean for that reason, but the process still only states True or False results for each Straight Line being plotted.

The rest is irrelevant to the post at hand, but where in these Rules do you think permission is given to use Line of Sight to anything other then determining if the model can 'see' something?

As for why I am making it complicated, because the Rules are complicated when you are viewing them as 'written' as sometimes common sense solutions can not be applied. Sometimes you need to slap on an obvious solution to the problem, but those should be recognized as solutions to issues instead of being pushed as something you can do as default. This one is simple, there are Rules telling us how to go about measuring a distance between two points. This one is directly problematic to the concept that elevation can even be measured: Distances between models and all other objects (which can be other models, terrain features and so on) are always measured from the closest point on one base to the closest point on the other base. As elevation requires us to measure the vertical distance between two points, so even if your doing so with a diagonal line, it would still be measuring a distance and bound by this Rule.

So lets see if the Intervening Model specifies that one can measure in the method you describe:
If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit (models not from the firer’s unit, or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. 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. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit, either because the firer has an elevated position or is firing a Barrage weapon, rather than through it.

Well obstruction requires Line of Sight, so we have permission to use Line of sight but only to determine if a Model from the third unit obstructs the second. There is nothing within that grants permission to determine if the shot is going over the head's of the Models by using this Line of Sight path. Besides, even if we grant that the Line of Sight method is Rule as Written support then we still proceed through the rest of the Rule. If the shot does pass over the head of a Model then the Cover Save is not granted because the conditions to trigger the Rule has not been met. As there is no reason to have an exception, which it clearly is by the words 'this does not apply if,' to exist unless the basic Rule itself has triggered by this point it is not unreasonable to state that the base Rule is in play some how.

Therefore it would be for shots which do go through a gap or the Model has 25% or more obscured, but something else is describing the shot as 'going over' or it is reasonable to assume a similar thing is happening. We are informed barrage, which could easily draw a line of sight through a gap between models as part of it's resolution, would void the Rule above as the shot is considered going 'over head'. We are also informed Elevation will do the same thing, but we are still left with assumptions on how to prove that the shot itself was 'elevated.' Would be nice if I was simply overlooking a sentence that stated 'line of sight is the path of shot, stupid' but I am sure it would of been quoted by now if that was the case....

While I am on that line of thought:
What happens if that Wrathknight is firing with only an inch to spare, but the only way to avoid a cover save is to draw line of sight down from the top most point of the head... does the weapon shoot further then it's range in that situation?
If the Unit it fired at decides to shoot back along the every same Line of Sight, do their Shot's go over the top of the Intervening Models as well?

Yay, double post.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Partially hidden means 25% or more hidden.

Please provide the rule that states that.

in cover means it is eligible for a cover save.

Please provide the rule that states that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
snip

Dude, I am done with the elevated discussion. It is simple, you want to make it complicated and convoluted. So have at it.... I have never met anyone so determined to make the simple seem complex, so this discussion is beyond meaningless to me.

Coredump,
The reason it got very complicated is my fault. Instead of focusing on the core of the problem I had with your method, I tried to use rules and other things to show you where conflicts may arise. I should of simply done what others have done in the past, asked you to provide exact Written Rules or mark your post as 'How I would Play It,' as rude as I consider such behavior to be. It has come down to that though, for what you are pushing is a House Rule without announcing that it is a House Rule. It really doesn't matter my view on your solution, or the fact treating the gap as a solid entity that the Line of Sight can not be drawn through and using basic Determine Cover Save rules is what I do, it still is a house Rule unless a Rule literally states we can use these methods to resolve this situation.

If you disagree, post the Rule which literally informs us how to determine the trajectory of the Shot itself and I will eat crow willingly for being blind to it....

coredump wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Partially hidden means 25% or more hidden.

Please provide the rule that states that.

I have, check this thread.

coredump wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
in cover means it is eligible for a cover save.

Please provide the rule that states that.

I have. check this thread...

BWAHAHAHAhahahaha.....

 DeathReaper wrote:

coredump wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Partially hidden means 25% or more hidden.

Please provide the rule that states that.

I have, check this thread.

No, you have not. Nor can you. The *only* place this is even close to being said is pertaining to (and *only* to) vehicles. But I guess when you get called out and can't really produce a rule... saying 'um, I did' may be the only option you have left.

So either provide the rule, or stop lying about it.

coredump wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
in cover means it is eligible for a cover save.

Please provide the rule that states that.

I have. check this thread...

I have. The only rule you quoted you misinterpreted. And *if* your interpretation were correct, it means that being 10% obscured also grants a cover save. So, are you willing to assert that being 10% (or 20% or 1%) obscured is enough for a cover save...? Because if not, you will need to present a new rule to support your assertion.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Coredump,
The reason it got very complicated is my fault. Instead of focusing on the core of the problem I had with your method, I tried to use rules and other things to show you where conflicts may arise. I should of simply done what others have done in the past, asked you to provide exact Written Rules or mark your post as 'How I would Play It,' as rude as I consider such behavior to be. It has come down to that though, for what you are pushing is a House Rule without announcing that it is a House Rule. It really doesn't matter my view on your solution, or the fact treating the gap as a solid entity that the Line of Sight can not be drawn through and using basic Determine Cover Save rules is what I do, it still is a house Rule unless a Rule literally states we can use these methods to resolve this situation.

If you disagree, post the Rule which literally informs us how to determine the trajectory of the Shot itself and I will eat crow willingly for being blind to it....

I may be understanding what you are driving at. So let me ask you a question first.....

If you get a cover save for shooting 'through' intervening models, how do you determine if the shots are actually going 'through' the gaps?

coredump wrote:
BWAHAHAHAhahahaha.....

 DeathReaper wrote:

coredump wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Partially hidden means 25% or more hidden.

Please provide the rule that states that.

I have, check this thread.

No, you have not. Nor can you. The *only* place this is even close to being said is pertaining to (and *only* to) vehicles. But I guess when you get called out and can't really produce a rule... saying 'um, I did' may be the only option you have left.

So either provide the rule, or stop lying about it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover." (The Shooting Phase chapter, Cover Saves section).

and here is the part that no one seems to have quoted

"If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model’s body (see General Principles) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save"(The Shooting Phase chapter, Determining Cover Saves section).

The rules say that you need to be 25% obscured to gain a cover save, they also say that models that are partially hidden or obscured by terrain is known as being in cover.

This equates being in cover to 25% obscured in the rules.

The Raw is pretty easy here:
25% obscured = Cover Save or "in Cover"

"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."

completely visible (between gaps) = Cover Save or "in Cover"

The only time you get a Cover save without needing 25% is:
A) "Area terrain" or rules for Ruins etc ("Area terrain" is no longer defined)
B)"through the gaps between models in an intervening unit"

So where do you draw Line of Sight from? The "head"/optics? The weapon? The Torso?

That's in the Line of Sight Rules if you read them carefully.

Eyes for most, Along the barrel for vehicles...

Taffy17 wrote:
So where do you draw Line of Sight from? The "head"/optics? The weapon? The Torso?

For non-vehicle models, from body as per BRB

BRB 7e: General Principles -> Line of Sight wrote: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.

Coredump:
Now you are asking the right questions, several pages just to get to this point when I should of been blunt... I do apologize. Truth is, I honestly haven't got a clue and that bothers the hell out of me because it is a sign of either dementia or some very poorly written Rules. In any case, it is not an issue on the Tabletop because people are analog machines and able to get past these problems without even giving them serious thought. It still does seem important to point out that this appears to be a gap in the Rules whenever something of it's type is brought up, mostly in hopes someone will give me the rule quote that will let me fill in this little missing piece of Rule as Written puzzle but also so people realize what we are presenting have been the most common House Rules used for the situation.

The closest I have come to figuring out how the shot 'travels' from the Firing Model to the Target has been to look at when the Shot does this. The problem with that is it occurs right in the middle of the Shooting Phase, where all Ranges and Distance based Measurements are done by the Base to Base Rules which do not account for height at all. That is why I want there to be something that allows me to break this Measurement method specifically for determining the trajectory of the Shot, cause in those few instances where it might actually matter I would like a page I can refer to that tells us how to determine this. Which, to be completely fair to you at this point, would have to contain some sort of Line of Sight reference because nothing else in the Rules comes close to applying.

 DeathReaper wrote:


The rules say that you need to be 25% obscured to gain a cover save, they also say that models that are partially hidden or obscured by terrain is known as being in cover.

This is true, agreed.
In shorter form:
25% obscured = cover save
partially hidden = In Cover

This equates being in cover to 25% obscured in the rules.

Huh??
How does that 'equate'?

From your premise
25% obscured = cover save (A = B)
partially hidden = In Cover (C = D)

Then you magically determine that A = D...???


And *if* that is true, why do they *never* use that definition, they always refer to 25% obscured, the only time they refer to 'partially obscured' is when referring to *any* level of obscurement.

And *if* that is true, why do they make such a big point in the vehicle section say that for vehicles, in that section, Obscured means 25% obscured?


No where does it say 'partially obscured' = 25% obscured
No where does it say 'partially hidden' = 25% obscured
No where does it say 'in cover' = get a cover save.

If a model is 10% obscured, that model is partially obscured, that is 'in cover', that does *not* get a cover save.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The Raw is pretty easy here:
25% obscured = Cover Save or "in Cover"

completely visible (between gaps) = Cover Save or "in Cover"

Okay, if the RAW is pretty easy, could you please point to the rule that supports your assertion? Where does it state that 'in cover' gets a cover save? Where does it state that 'In Cover' means 25% Obscured....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's in the Line of Sight Rules if you read them carefully.

Eyes for most, Along the barrel for vehicles...

No, if you read them 'carefully' you find non-vehicles can draw LoS from anywhere on the body of the model.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Coredump:
Now you are asking the right questions, several pages just to get to this point when I should of been blunt... I do apologize. Truth is, I honestly haven't got a clue and that bothers the hell out of me because it is a sign of either dementia or some very poorly written Rules.

Okay, I think we are close to the same page.... let me be sure.

A HIve Tyrant is shooting at a dreadnaught, it is shooting between two models, but can see the entire dreadnaught.
Does the dread get a save? Your answer would be "There is no way to know, because there is no way to know if the shot is going 'through' the gap, or 'over' the gap. There is a method for determining LoS, but no method for determining the path of the bullet."

Is this correct?

Add 'Because strict Rule as Written can be quite stupid like that' to the end of it.

Okay, I gotcha now.

I think it is self evident that the LoS is also meant to be the path of the bullet, so I treat it from that perspective. But it isn't ever explicitly stated....

I'll keep it quick, computer issues, but these four situations that keep summing up my problem with 'the gap:'

1) A 'Big Head' model obscures 10% of the Target... No save, correct?
2) Slap a friend in his unit, 10% of the Target is covered by Bighead and the gap another 20% ... Cover Save?
3) Move the friend close, now 10% is covered by Bighead, 10% his friend and 10% is a gap between them... Cover Save?
4) Move a third Model in there now, >25% of the Model is covered by the group of three and the gap is the remaining 5%... clear cover save, correct?

It isn't just about the shot going from a towering shooter, the problem is far more persistent in more horizontal shots where the 'elevation' is not so pronounced.

The real question is how do you definitively determine if 25% of the model is obscured?

A space marine, a zoanthrope, and a wraithknight walk into a bar and the wraithknight standing at the other end of the bar says something derogatory about the Emperor. The space marine decides a plasma cocktail is the way to reward such talk, however the big-headed zoanthrope is sitting between them slightly closer to the space marine. For the life of him the space marine can't figure out if sir-talks-a-lot is going to get a cover save...

coredump wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
The Raw is pretty easy here:
25% obscured = Cover Save or "in Cover"

completely visible (between gaps) = Cover Save or "in Cover"

Okay, if the RAW is pretty easy, could you please point to the rule that supports your assertion? Where does it state that 'in cover' gets a cover save? Where does it state that 'In Cover' means 25% Obscured....

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's in the Line of Sight Rules if you read them carefully.

Eyes for most, Along the barrel for vehicles...

No, if you read them 'carefully' you find non-vehicles can draw LoS from anywhere on the body of the model.

Conceded for the Body take correction.

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."

being in cover = entitled to cover save = take saving throw

Sorry if i make it too simple...

 BlackTalos wrote:


"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."

being in cover = entitled to cover save = take saving throw

Sure, but you missed two *important* aspects of that quote

Partially hidden = in cover The rule is *very* clear on this definition. So according to your logic
Partially hidden = in cover = entitled to saving throw = take saving throw

So *IF* you are correct, anytime you are at all partially hidden, you are entitled to a saving throw. So *IF* your interpretation is correct, being 10% hidden, would mean you are in cover and would get a cover save.

So, are you advocating that this rule allows for cover saves for being 10% hidden?

Luckily, there is the second part that you skipped over: *WHERE THIS IS THE CASE* the model is entitled to a saving throw. Meaning it is *not always* the case. In some cases when you are in cover, you get a saving throw, and in some cases when in cover you do not get a saving throw. So the question is, how do you determine which cases allow for a saving throw...???
Luckily, the *very next section* tells you how to make that determination....

Sorry if i make it too simple...

Not 'too simple', just not right.

The rules equate Partially hidden = in cover = entitled to saving throw = take saving throw

They also say that in order to take a cover save the model needs to be 25% or more obscured.

The two are equated by the rules and your premise of "being 10% hidden, would mean you are in cover and would get a cover save." is incorrect.

Thus In cover =25% obscured or more as that how a model is granted a cover save.

*WHERE THIS IS THE CASE* is talking about the first part of the sentence this part: ""Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover"

So if a model is partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover, where this is the case, meaning when they are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover then the model is entitled to a saving throw.

BlackTalos is correct.

JinxDragon wrote:
I'll keep it quick, computer issues, but these four situations that keep summing up my problem with 'the gap:'

1) A 'Big Head' model obscures 10% of the Target... No save, correct?
2) Slap a friend in his unit, 10% of the Target is covered by Bighead and the gap another 20% ... Cover Save?
3) Move the friend close, now 10% is covered by Bighead, 10% his friend and 10% is a gap between them... Cover Save?
4) Move a third Model in there now, >25% of the Model is covered by the group of three and the gap is the remaining 5%... clear cover save, correct?

It isn't just about the shot going from a towering shooter, the problem is far more persistent in more horizontal shots where the 'elevation' is not so pronounced.

First, I believe the rules indicate that LoS is the same as 'path of the bullet'. If you don't accept that, all sorts of things break.

1) No save, because the target is 10% in cover.
2) Yes cover save, because the target is 30% in cover.
3) Yes cover save, because the target is 30% in cover.
4) Yes cover save, because the target is 30% in cover.


Now let me ask two questions:
5) Target is 10% obscured by a blob of guardsmen. They are in a dense blob, so there are no gaps to see through.. Cover save?
6) The blob spreads out, so now you can see parts of the model throug the gaps. Cover save?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules equate Partially hidden = in cover = entitled to saving throw = take saving throw

They also say that in order to take a cover save the model needs to be 25% or more obscured.

The two are equated by the rules and your premise of "being 10% hidden, would mean you are in cover and would get a cover save." is incorrect.

Thus In cover =25% obscured or more as that how a model is granted a cover save.

*WHERE THIS IS THE CASE* is talking about the first part of the sentence this part: ""Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover"

So if a model is partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover, where this is the case, meaning when they are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover then the model is entitled to a saving throw.

BlackTalos is correct.

That is not how rules work, and you know it.
According to you.
Rule 1: Get a cover save if Partially hidden
Rule 2: Get a cover save is 25% obscured.

The 2 rules are not in direct contradiction, they both apply, If you are 30% in cover, it means both rules apply. If only 10% obscured, the second rule would not apply, but the first one would. (assuming your interpretation is correct, luckily it is not.)

This happens *all the time* in the rules, and it *never* works like what you are now saying.

Rule 3: Get a cover save if you Jink
Rule 4: Get a cover save if Shrouded
etc.

By your logic Partially Hidden = 25% obscured = Jink = Shrouded. It is going to come as a shock to find out being Shrouded is the same as declaring Jink....


And you are still conveniently ignoring the part of the rule "Where this is the case..." Indicating that it is not always the case that being in cover grants a cover save....

Per Rule as Written with the concept that the shot follows all possible Line of Sight instead of a single one:
5) No Cover Save
6) Cover Save

That was the situation I was trying to highlight in question 1 and 2, where the only change in veritable is the creation of a Gap. I went with the gap covering 20% of the Model to emphasize the point and make it impossible to argue that the gap was somehow 'too small to count.' The situation you put forth is another one I think on often, but position the Target and Firing Units to be on a second story with some larger Unit between them... I don't pull it out because I don't think I can describe it well enough. In any case, while it would not matter to the Rule as Written either way as the Unit Firing through said gap is all that matters, it was just to make it more pronounced the change in outcomes when this gap is included in the calculations.

There has been one thing I have been thinking on... the use of the word similarly instead of additionally....
With that I resend my point, thank you for giving me a Rule as Written way to support the 'solid nothing' method.

coredump wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:


"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover. Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm. Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores all armour saves, a cover saving throw can still be taken."

being in cover = entitled to cover save = take saving throw

Sure, but you missed two *important* aspects of that quote

Partially hidden = in cover The rule is *very* clear on this definition. So according to your logic
Partially hidden = in cover = entitled to saving throw = take saving throw

So *IF* you are correct, anytime you are at all partially hidden, you are entitled to a saving throw. So *IF* your interpretation is correct, being 10% hidden, would mean you are in cover and would get a cover save.

So, are you advocating that this rule allows for cover saves for being 10% hidden?

Luckily, there is the second part that you skipped over: *WHERE THIS IS THE CASE* the model is entitled to a saving throw. Meaning it is *not always* the case. In some cases when you are in cover, you get a saving throw, and in some cases when in cover you do not get a saving throw. So the question is, how do you determine which cases allow for a saving throw...???
Luckily, the *very next section* tells you how to make that determination....

Sorry if i make it too simple...

Not 'too simple', just not right.

Please quote the rule where "Partially hidden = less than 25%" as you so assert?

Partially hidden = in cover = entitled to saving throw = take saving throw
Is correct, and >25%.

"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. (25% obscured by another Unit) 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."(0% Obscured)

Notice the separation word "Similarly". So A + B, not A = B