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.

Can some monstrous creatures ignore cover for just being taller ? Let's say a wall is in the way ,and it's up to its knees, between it and a puny guardsman. Both units are quite a bit of distant from the wall. Since monstrous creatures don't shoot like vehicles at what height is the shot coming from? If the shot is coming from it's food the guardsman would still get cover ;/.

If the model is tall enough that the terrain doesnt obstruct LOS, then the terrain doesn't obstruct LOS.

You take LOS from anywhere in the model's body.

 insaniak wrote:
If the model is tall enough that the terrain doesnt obstruct LOS, then the terrain doesn't obstruct LOS.

You take LOS from anywhere in the model's body.

Unless they are IN the Terrain, of course.

Charistoph wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If the model is tall enough that the terrain doesnt obstruct LOS, then the terrain doesn't obstruct LOS.

You take LOS from anywhere in the model's body.

Unless they are IN the Terrain, of course.

Provided that said terrain gives a save for being IN it. Otherwise its LOS.

Fragile wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If the model is tall enough that the terrain doesnt obstruct LOS, then the terrain doesn't obstruct LOS.

You take LOS from anywhere in the model's body.

Unless they are IN the Terrain, of course.

Provided that said terrain gives a save for being IN it. Otherwise its LOS.

And that the unit in question is a non-vehicle unit, as in the case of the OP's "puny guardsman" example.

Why does being non-vehicle make a difference?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why does being non-vehicle make a difference?

I've edited my post to make clearer what I was referring to, that if the unit were in terrain that grants a cover save for being in it, it would only apply if they were a non-vehicle unit as vehicles of course are not granted cover saves simply for being in terrain.

Are they not? Got a reference for that?

P77 - Vehicles and Cover - 2nd bullet

That has nothing to do with how area terrain works now though. Nothing is obscured by being in terrain so that is just a reminder if how normal cover works. Then the datasheets give cover regardless of obscures status so work just as much for vehicles as anything else.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Are they not? Got a reference for that?

"Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins. The 25% rule given above takes precedence."

I'm guessing you want to get picky about how the rulebook uses the phrase "are not obscured" rather than something like "do not gain a cover save" but the last sentence is the more important of the two.

Needing to actually be at least 25% hidden takes precedence over being in terrain such as woods or ruins.

 FlingitNow wrote:
That has nothing to do with how area terrain works now though. Nothing is obscured by being in terrain so that is just a reminder if how normal cover works. Then the datasheets give cover regardless of obscures status so work just as much for vehicles as anything else.

Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save regardless of whether or not they are obscured. P108

All of the terrain datasheets (craters, woods, etc.) say this as well. P184-191

You don't get obscured or cover just for being in woods or ruins. There are however special terrain datasheets at the end of the rulebook that do provide cover save to models in the terrain regardless of obscured status these work for vehicles just as much as any other model. Area terrain is no longer a thing in 7th.

Given that you're told to base the rules for scratch built terrain on the terrain datasheets then virtually all terrain has those rules. P183

And ruins are called out explicitly outside of the datasheets.

Given that, surely the vehicle rule is more specific stating that vehicles are an exception to those rules?

So to be specific woods, craters and ruins do nothing. However Twisted Copse, Moonscape, Sanctum Imperialis, Basilica Administratum etc give cover saves to models in them regardless of obscured status.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Given that you're told to base the rules for scratch built terrain on the terrain datasheets then virtually all terrain has those rules. P183

And ruins are called out explicitly outside of the datasheets.

Given that, surely the vehicle rule is more specific stating that vehicles are an exception to those rules?

Nope vehicle rules are no where near as specific as say the Twisted Copse rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So to be specific woods, craters and ruins do nothing. However Twisted Copse, Moonscape, Sanctum Imperialis, Basilica Administratum etc give cover saves to models in them regardless of obscured status.

Did you even read what I posted? Ruins are explicitly called out as granting cover regardless of obscuration on P108. This is entirely separate to the terrain datasheets.


Also, there is no "woods" or "ruins" or "craters" terrain model. You're told to make a datasheet for your scratch built terrain and that you should use the datasheets in rulebook as an example for how to do this.

Therefore the logical thing to do is to give your scratch built generic woods and ruins the same rules and this is suggested.

P183

 FlingitNow wrote:
Nope vehicle rules are no where near as specific as say the Twisted Copse rules.

Given that all ruins, woods, craters, etc. will have those rules following the guidelines for non-official models given on P183 I would disagree that the terrain rules are more specific.

Cover rule that applies to all ruins/woods/craters (unless you choose for it not to) and applies to all models which says you don't need to be 25% obscured.
vs.
Cover exception rule that applies only to vehicles and says you must always be 25% obscured.

If the rule on P77 isn't expressly calling out an exception to those rules then what is it doing?

 insaniak wrote:
If the model is tall enough that the terrain doesnt obstruct LOS, then the terrain doesn't obstruct LOS.

You take LOS from anywhere in the model's body.

This is the end-all be all. There are some terrain pieces that ignore LOS and grant you cover simply for being "in" them, regardless of obscurement, though the vehicle rules specify that this can never be the case. They ALWAYS need to be obscured. Which terrain pieces require obscurement and which pieces do not are explicitly defined in the data sheets created by GW as well as the battlefield terrain section that defines what each piece of terrain is.

Fling is correct in that there is no such thing as explicit "area terrain"; however a number of pieces of terrain effectively function in the same way. What you will find pretty much no matter where you go is that opponents will discuss how the terrain works prior to deployment so that there is no confusion because there definitely could be. Most tournaments just say "this is going to work LIKE area terrain and the cover save you get is _____ ". This is for ease of playing at a high speed without having to worry about wobbly models and/or not being able to place models.

When you use p183 to make up your own rules how you make up those rules will determine how they interact with p77. If you make them the same as the official ones in the rulebook then they will be more specific than generic vehicle rules. But yes made up rules may well interact with p77 differently than the normal rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
When you use p183 to make up your own rules how you make up those rules will determine how they interact with p77. If you make them the same as the official ones in the rulebook then they will be more specific than generic vehicle rules. But yes made up rules may well interact with p77 differently than the normal rules.

If you're not "making up rules" then you're left using the official 40K scenery which (mostly) has datasheets granting an exception to the obscuration rule.

And there is an explicit call out for ruins always granting cover regardless of being obscured on P108.

Since all ruins and virtually all woods and craters are granting cover without obscuration it seems pretty clear what the vehicles exception to be granted cover without obscuration does.

It might be "obvious" it isn't however what the rules say. And yes of you don't make up your own rules for units you can only use GW units and the same is true for terrain. Why exactly is that surprising or odd?

 FlingitNow wrote:
It might be "obvious" it isn't however what the rules say. And yes of you don't make up your own rules for units you can only use GW units and the same is true for terrain. Why exactly is that surprising or odd?

If you're only using GW terrain then virtually all terrain grants cover without obscuration. If you're using your other terrain then the rulebook tells you to give it rules in line with those same datasheets. Additionally all ruins grant cover without obscuration (despite your claims to the contrary).

Lets take ruins as an example:
Ruins grant cover to all models without obscuration.
Vehicles have a rule that says they must always be obscured to get cover and don't get a cover save "simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins".

Very clear which is more specific.

 FlingitNow wrote:
You don't get obscured or cover just for being in woods or ruins. There are however special terrain datasheets at the end of the rulebook that do provide cover save to models in the terrain regardless of obscured status these work for vehicles just as much as any other model. Area terrain is no longer a thing in 7th.

So in fact what I said was correct:

"...as vehicles of course are not granted cover saves simply for being in terrain."

If a rule is simply that models in it receive a cover save then the at least 25% requirement for vehicles takes precedence.

To override that a terrain datasheet would require a rule which says, "Models, including vehicles, in this terrain receive a cover save." Which I wasn't talking about.

Vehicles don't get obscured for being in terrain. So any terrain that gives cover regardless of obscured status has no interaction with that rule and thus gives Vehicles a cover save. So ruins also give vehicles the cover save for the same reason. Likewise the scratch built terrain rules would give you a cover save on your vehicles if you made those rules in line with the existing datasheets. However if you wrote those rules differently then they could interact with pg77 differently.

From the first line under 'Cover Saves':

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover... Where this is the case the model will be entitled to a cover save."

So "obscured" = "in cover" = "entitled to a cover save".

So then what the second point under 'Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets' basically says is, "Vehicles are not in cover and entitled to a cover save simply for being in terrain such as woods or ruins."

That has everything to do with terrain that grants a cover save to models for simply being in it, i.e. terrain such as woods and ruins.

Unless you disagree with the terms meanings relative to each other as I've given them (in which case please explain) I'm having trouble understanding the rules support for your position, so could you please explain?

The ruins etc state you get a cover save not that you are in cover or obscured. The datasheets explicitly state that this has nothing to do with being obscured. Models in cover are obscured and gain a cover save from that, however that is not the only way to get cover as evidenced by Ruins, Terrain Datasheets, Shrouded, Jink etc.

The datasheets actually say regardless of whether or not the model is 25% obscured. The fact that vehicles tell us the 25% requirement takes precedence rather links the two and overrides what the rules for ruins and the like say.

One says you must be 25% obscured to be in cover. The other says you get a cover save regardless of being obscured which you yourself have stated means the same asin cover. So 1 rule states you must be 25% obscured to be in cover the other gives you a cover save regardless of whether you are in cover. I don't see the conflict. The vehicle is not in cover but receives a cover save anyway.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Vehicles don't get obscured for being in terrain. So any terrain that gives cover regardless of obscured status has no interaction with that rule and thus gives Vehicles a cover save. So ruins also give vehicles the cover save for the same reason. Likewise the scratch built terrain rules would give you a cover save on your vehicles if you made those rules in line with the existing datasheets. However if you wrote those rules differently then they could interact with pg77 differently.

Part of me thinks you were trolling here but if not I can't understand how you can disregard the vehicle cover rule in the vehicle section of the rules as stated above. That rule takes precedent unless a terrain data sheet specifically states how it affects vehicles. I don't know of anywhere that they play the way you are talking about and in every case vehicles clues must be 25%+ to get the save

You have a vehicle rule that states they must be 25% obscured to get a cover save? If so I'd love to hear it. Are you saying a vehicle with Shrouded wouldn't get a 5+ cover save in the open as it is not 25% obscured? Or a jinking vehicle also doesn't receive a cover save unless it is 25% obscured?

If you disagree with my interpretation then please actually state what is incorrect that I have actually stated. Or we are just going to go in a circle covering all points that Shrike brought up that were proven incorrect.

He's not trolling. He's pointing out how the wording of the vehicle rule basically makes itself useless. RAW he's right.

the rule says you are not obscured. nothing says you MUST be obscured to take a cover save. It's just one way of receiving one.

So, again, the rule just says you are not obscured. the terrain datasheets grant you a save regardless of whether or not you're obscured.

This is not hiwpi, and I personally believe RAI is against RAW in this case. The rule is there for a reason, and I think that reason is to not grant cover saves from the terrain rules