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.

Raiders and ravagers have bases but you measure distances and range from its hull. In terms of being in cover how does this work. If it's base is the open but its hull is hovering over the base of some forest terrain or ruins and its 50% obscured does it get the bonus of cover? Or does it's flyer base have to be within or on cover for it to get the +1 to its save

Cheers

Base must be in for it to qualify for cover, plus 50% obscured.

Depends on the keyword they have. INFANTRY just needs to be fully within the terrain to get cover. Other units also need to be 50% obscured from the viewer. Note that it doesnt have to be that ruin they are in that obscures the view. All that counts is that they are only 50% visible to the viewer. It can be other units, friendly or enemy, or other terrain blocking LoS.

ravenerioli wrote:
Raiders and ravagers have bases but you measure distances and range from its hull. In terms of being in cover how does this work. If it's base is the open but its hull is hovering over the base of some forest terrain or ruins and its 50% obscured does it get the bonus of cover? Or does it's flyer base have to be within or on cover for it to get the +1 to its save

Cheers

The base both has to be on the terrain piece and be 50% obscured because it is not Infantry.

I'm not asking that I'm asking do you measure being in cover from the flyer base of the raider/ravager or from the hull. A leman russ in cover doesn't have a separate base, the tank hull itself needs to be in cover. How does this work for flying vehicles that have a base

The base has to be within the terrain piece. The whole base.

 p5freak wrote:
The base has to be within the terrain piece. The whole base.

No it doesn’t.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ravenerioli wrote:
I'm not asking that I'm asking do you measure being in cover from the flyer base of the raider/ravager or from the hull. A leman russ in cover doesn't have a separate base, the tank hull itself needs to be in cover. How does this work for flying vehicles that have a base

You measure 50% obscured the same way you would anything else - can you see less than half of the profile of the vehicle from POV of the firer?

 JohnnyHell wrote:


No it doesn’t.

Depends on the terrain. I was talking about ruins.

"Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin
receive the benefit of cover. Other units that are entirely
on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at
least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of
view of the shooting model."

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


No it doesn’t.

Depends on the terrain. I was talking about ruins.

"Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin
receive the benefit of cover. Other units that are entirely
on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at
least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of
view of the shooting model."

“Within” for a single model unit includes just a sliver of the base in the terrain.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


No it doesn’t.

Depends on the terrain. I was talking about ruins.

"Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin
receive the benefit of cover. Other units that are entirely
on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at
least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of
view of the shooting model."

“Within” for a single model unit includes just a sliver of the base in the terrain.

The wording is somewhat contradictory, dont you think ? If its enough to be within a ruin, just touching it with the base, why does it have to be entirely on ?

The 'entirely' applies to both parts of the phrase. You must be entirely on or entirely within.

A single model unit that has part of its base in terrain is within it by the rules, so that unit is entirely within terrain.

 Ghaz wrote:
The 'entirely' applies to both parts of the phrase. You must be entirely on or entirely within.

From the wording in the FAQ, it seems that the word "entirely" is meant to refer to the unit, rather than either/both the phrases "on" or "within." Which, as an aside, makes this about as badly written a rule as I've ever seen.

Here's the exact language from the main rulebook FAQ, page 2:

For example, units gain the benefit of cover if every model in the unit is either on or within terrain. So long as all the models in that unit are either on or partially within the terrain, they gain the benefit of cover.

[Emphasis added.]

Again, the rule is terribad, but the FAQ at least is pretty clear.

"Entirely" is referring to the unit, as in, all models that make up the unit must be within cover.

It doesn't refer to every single model being 100% enclosed by the terrain feature. A single model is "within" the terrain by having its base partially or wholly within.
So if a unit has all of its models "within", it can be said to be "entirely within"

So when someone asks A) if a single model unit is "entirely within", the answer is dependent on B) whether all that unit's models are partially or wholly within.
If the answer to question B is yes, the answer to question A is also yes

-

I see 'entirely within' as being synonymous with 'wholly within':

Q: Can you clarify what the difference is between ‘wholly within’ and ‘within’ for rules purposes?

A: If a rule says it affects units/models that are ‘wholly within’ then it only applies if the entire unit/model is within. If it just says ‘within’, however, then it applies so long as any part of the unit/model is within.

I'm not arguing about 50% or entirely within here guys. My question is simply this. If the clear flying base isn't on a piece of terrain but the flying ravager/landspeeder/raider etc hull is hovering over the top of a ruin/forest/any other terrain then does it count as within terrain. Not ENTIRELY within terrain, simply within, so a small part of the model. Obviously the flying hull isn't actually touching the ruin/forest/etc it's an inch or so above it, does that count as within, if the clear flying base is 100% not within the cover

ravenerioli wrote:
I'm not arguing about 50% or entirely within here guys. My question is simply this. If the clear flying base isn't on a piece of terrain but the flying ravager/landspeeder/raider etc hull is hovering over the top of a ruin/forest/any other terrain then does it count as within terrain. Not ENTIRELY within terrain, simply within, so a small part of the model. Obviously the flying hull isn't actually touching the ruin/forest/etc it's an inch or so above it, does that count as within, if the clear flying base is 100% not within the cover

If the base is not at least partially in/on the terrain then no, no cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
"Entirely" is referring to the unit, as in, all models that make up the unit must be within cover.

It doesn't refer to every single model being 100% enclosed by the terrain feature. A single model is "within" the terrain by having its base partially or wholly within.
So if a unit has all of its models "within", it can be said to be "entirely within"

So when someone asks A) if a single model unit is "entirely within", the answer is dependent on B) whether all that unit's models are partially or wholly within.
If the answer to question B is yes, the answer to question A is also yes

-

Agreed.

If the base is not at least partially in/on the terrain then no, no cover.

Where are you getting that conclusion from. If a hovering hull is within terrain but the base isn't where does it say that the model isn't 'within' terrain? I can accept that with flyers such as jets and valks but for something like a landspeeder, ravager, venom or raider that have the rule saying measure from the hull, surely their hulls are enough to say they're within cover

The “hovering hull” is hovering over terrain then how are you claiming that model is ‘in’ or ‘within’ the terrain? It’s above it, not in it. Toe the base in and you have the potential to claim cover, otherwise you fail the “on or within” test from the Core Rules. If you want to House Rule with an opponent that “above = in” you can, but it’s not following the Core Rules to do so.

Ultimately it’s an abstraction but makes sense... hovering above something doesn’t protect you. Descending close to the ruin would allow the slimmer to shelter behind it. Toeing into cover represents this kind of thing, and is a simple line for do you/don’t you get cover. Anything else opens up a pile of subjective interpretations and potential for arguments.

Landspeeders also don’t measure from the hull. They’re a standard model with a base for most Rules purposes.

If I recall (correct me if I am misinformed).

Vehicles do not benefit from "being in" cover. Simply 50% obscured or not.

So If I have a Dreadnought in a crater terrain, unless I'm 50% obscured from the shooting model I don't get cover I don't think. The cover save from simply being in terrain in bikes and infantry I believe.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
If I recall (correct me if I am misinformed).

Vehicles do not benefit from "being in" cover. Simply 50% obscured or not.

So If I have a Dreadnought in a crater terrain, unless I'm 50% obscured from the shooting model I don't get cover I don't think. The cover save from simply being in terrain in bikes and infantry I believe.

Depends on the terrain. We’re largely discussing Ruins, using the Advanced Terrain rules. Non-INFANTRY models need to be both in/on the terrain, and 50% obscured, as per Rules and FAQs.

Craters only allow INFANTRY to claim cover as you mention (you can’t hide a Russ down a shell hole!). Their rules are different.

As far as ruins granting cover to a vehicle, if there's even a slightest doubt whether it's 'in' the ruins, chances are, it's not 'in' the ruin.

It should be fairly clear cut (visually) if a vehicle is obscured enough to claim the benefit of cover, especially since we're dealing with one of the more subjective ruleset as being "50% obscured."

Lets see what you rule. The dread is touching the temple ruin with its base. Does it get cover when the intercessors shoot it ?

Obscured 50% -Yes
"Within" cover -No. It must be within or on the terrain. Touching it doesn't count

Now if the ruin has a slight lip of a base itself (like that sidewalk) and the Dreads base is at least a hair on it, then Yes, the Dread would count as on/within the cover and would indeed get cover

-

The bigger question is “why are those guys shooting their own Angry Washing Machine?”

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The bigger question is “why are those guys shooting their own Angry Washing Machine?”

Anger Management issues.

It looks like terrain the dread is in is not the terrain that is obscuring the dread. So.. no cover.

It's in terrain, but not 50% obscured by the terrain it's in.
It's 50% obscured by the terrain pillar in front of it, but is not within it.

 deviantduck wrote:
It looks like terrain the dread is in is not the terrain that is obscuring the dread. So.. no cover.

It's in terrain, but not 50% obscured by the terrain it's in.
It's 50% obscured by the terrain pillar in front of it, but is not within it.

That's not how the rule works. Non Infantry need to be in terrain and 50% obscured, but that doesn't mean they must be 50% obscured BY the terrain they are in.

A Dread could be in a Ruin and 50% obscured by a Rhino in front of it and it WOULD get cover.

-

 Galef wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
It looks like terrain the dread is in is not the terrain that is obscuring the dread. So.. no cover.

It's in terrain, but not 50% obscured by the terrain it's in.
It's 50% obscured by the terrain pillar in front of it, but is not within it.

That's not how the rule works. Non Infantry need to be in terrain and 50% obscured, but that doesn't mean they must be 50% obscured BY the terrain they are in.

A Dread could be in a Ruin and 50% obscured by a Rhino in front of it and it WOULD get cover.

-

It's not specifically defined. But why would the Ruin grant a +1 to a Dread if the ruin itself wasn't providing the obscuring? I can see it argued either way though.

INFANTRY units that are on a ruin
receive the benefit of cover. Other
units only receive the benefit of
cover if at least 50% of every model
is actually obscured from the point
of view of the shooting unit.

 deviantduck wrote:

It's not specifically defined. But why would the Ruin grant a +1 to a Dread if the ruin itself wasn't providing the obscuring? I can see it argued either way though.

Yes, it is defined. Rulebook update 1.2. It was already in 1.1.

Q: Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters,
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A: No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within
the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).