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.

jaxor1983 wrote:
Any unit is granted cover by a ruin, as long as every model within the unit is within the cover (toe in) and 50% obscured.

Nope. ENTIRELY on or in. Whole model has to be inside the base of the ruin. You been playin wrong brosef, gotta keep up on your FAQs. BRB Errata for pg 248.

ERJAK wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:
Any unit is granted cover by a ruin, as long as every model within the unit is within the cover (toe in) and 50% obscured.

Nope. ENTIRELY on or in. Whole model has to be inside the base of the ruin. You been playin wrong brosef, gotta keep up on your FAQs. BRB Errata for pg 248.

That's the UNIT entirely in, as in every model needs to be in cover. Not the individual models' bases needs to be entirely contained within the cover.

 Stux wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:
Any unit is granted cover by a ruin, as long as every model within the unit is within the cover (toe in) and 50% obscured.

Nope. ENTIRELY on or in. Whole model has to be inside the base of the ruin. You been playin wrong brosef, gotta keep up on your FAQs. BRB Errata for pg 248.

That's the UNIT entirely in, as in every model needs to be in cover. Not the individual models' bases needs to be entirely contained within the cover.

Yeah it's a subtle but important distinction.

 Stux wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:
Any unit is granted cover by a ruin, as long as every model within the unit is within the cover (toe in) and 50% obscured.

Nope. ENTIRELY on or in. Whole model has to be inside the base of the ruin. You been playin wrong brosef, gotta keep up on your FAQs. BRB Errata for pg 248.

That's the UNIT entirely in, as in every model needs to be in cover. Not the individual models' bases needs to be entirely contained within the cover.

I think these two quotes from the BRB FAQ say it Pretty Clearly:

"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)."

And

"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. "

So I believe the BRB FAQ agrees with your assessment that as long as any part of the vehicle is in the ruin and it is at least 50% obscured you get the cover bonus.

A: If a rule says it affects units/models that are ‘wholly
within’ then it only applies if the entire unit/model is within

This literally says the entire model has to be within. Not a toe. Not a milimeter of the base. The entire model.

That is correct.

However if they follow Jormungandr, it will not apply to models with FLY keyword. So, no 2+ Hemlocks. Would be my guess.

 McGibs wrote:
A: If a rule says it affects units/models that are ‘wholly
within’ then it only applies if the entire unit/model is within

This literally says the entire model has to be within. Not a toe. Not a milimeter of the base. The entire model.

But the quoted FAQ just said:

"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)."

ie, to get cover, the model has to be within (not "wholly within"). therefore, a toe is enough.

 McGibs wrote:
A: If a rule says it affects units/models that are ‘wholly
within’ then it only applies if the entire unit/model is within

This literally says the entire model has to be within. Not a toe. Not a milimeter of the base. The entire model.

I think you're misreading it.

If the rule says it affects units, then it applies only if the entire unit is within. The entire unit is within if every model is 'toe in'

If the rules says it affects models then it only applies if the model is entirely in. The model's base must be fully in.

Terrain and Cover
.......
If a unit is entirely on or within any terrain
feature, add 1 to its models’ saving throws
against shooting attacks to represent the
cover received from the terrain (invulnerable
saves are unaffected). Units gain no benefit
from cover in the Fight phase.



Now re-reading it, and the Faq that someone posted im on the side of "Toe in counts" as long as every model in the unit has a toe in, single unit models will count as toes in as well.

Unless they mean within in as in there are 4 walls with 0 bases and you are within those walls.

Toe in cover counts for single monsters, they need that 50%

Martel732 wrote:
Toe in cover counts for single monsters, they need that 50%

Correct, i wasnt saying ignore the rest of the rules for cover

Indeed a single model *unit* is ENTIRELY within as long as only part of it is in/on cover. Because the 1 model of the *unit* is in/on, therefore the entire *unit* is.
The rules for non-Infantry do not say WHOLLY within, per the FAQ, therefore single model units do not need to be WHOLLY within to be ENTIRELY within.

The confusion comes from GW using both words I've used in all CAPS above. Entirely and Wholly can be synonymous, but in this case, GW has specified they have subtle, but very different uses.

But at any rate, it is still very difficult to achieve these conditions on many tables in many different areas. Some stores just do not have enough Ruins with tall enough "rubble" to cover 50% of even a Rhino.
In my experience, it's either all or nothing, meaning the terrain isn't tall enough to cover 50%, or it's so tall that it outright blocks LoS entirely (thus making cover pointless)

That is why I am biased towards hoping the -1 to be hit traits become automatic cover outside 12", with the added +1 if you are actually in cover (so +2 total)
If it is just the added cover if actually in cover, it basically does nothing for most big models.

-

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:
Any unit is granted cover by a ruin, as long as every model within the unit is within the cover (toe in) and 50% obscured.

Nope. ENTIRELY on or in. Whole model has to be inside the base of the ruin. You been playin wrong brosef, gotta keep up on your FAQs. BRB Errata for pg 248.

That's the UNIT entirely in, as in every model needs to be in cover. Not the individual models' bases needs to be entirely contained within the cover.

Yeah it's a subtle but important distinction.

If the single model unit isn't on the base, the unit isn't entirely in either. Of course there's no way to prove that. This is another case of GW faqs making things worse rather than better.

Regardless, it still ends up the same. Cover is almost impossible to get on most tables for anything bigger than a dreadnought. Even being toe-in, being 50% obscured is very difficult with most ruins. Especially if the enemy can move and shoot. It would be easier than wholly within, but not by much.

Can I also point out how irritating it is that the example given in the FAQ doesn't use or address the word 'entirely' at all? So either way you're pretty much guessing what they mean by 'entirely' when that question would have been a perfect place to spell it out. Is 'entirely' synonymous with 'wholly'? If it's not why include it at all when your definition of 'within' would then make the qualifier 'entirely' pointlessly redundant.

Every time I think they're starting to get it...

Well, to be fair, a freaking huge Titan should't get cover hiding behind a barn that covers it's ankle.

Bharring wrote:
Well, to be fair, a freaking huge Titan should't get cover hiding behind a barn that covers it's ankle.

Well no, but if you can see the Titan's toe only and the rest of it is behind a building (but not in the building itself) it should get cover. The 50% obscured vehicle rule was a good one, and I don't like how vehicles basically can't ever get cover now.

A lot of ambiguity would have been cleared up if GW has labeled Ruins as buildings... Not ruins, and made that clear that a ruin was still a building.

I really jope they don't lower the keeper of secrets to 150pts.. I agree that they are not great, but cheaper than a prince is a bit much...

 Wibe wrote:
I really jope they don't lower the keeper of secrets to 150pts.. I agree that they are not great, but cheaper than a prince is a bit much...

Rumors have the LoC at 235 or so. Good chance the KoS is in the same ratio of point descrease.

I mean the poor thing has only 12 wounds.

Tzaangors going up makes me happy. Pretty stupid how well they pair with the dark matter crystal.

 Marmatag wrote:
Tzaangors going up makes me happy. Pretty stupid how well they pair with the dark matter crystal.

Yea they'll still be a great unit. Now I won't have to listen to people call it Codex Tzaangors, which is the real win.

Reemule wrote:
A lot of ambiguity would have been cleared up if GW has labeled Ruins as buildings... Not ruins, and made that clear that a ruin was still a building.

yeah, that doesn't seem ambiguous at all.

 Marmatag wrote:
That is correct.

However if they follow Jormungandr, it will not apply to models with FLY keyword. So, no 2+ Hemlocks. Would be my guess.

This would make Alaitoc worthless as jet bikes, grav tanks, etc all have fly. If that happens, Everyone will play Ulthwe for the free 6+++

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
That is correct.

However if they follow Jormungandr, it will not apply to models with FLY keyword. So, no 2+ Hemlocks. Would be my guess.

This would make Alaitoc worthless as jet bikes, grav tanks, etc all have fly. If that happens, Everyone will play Ulthwe for the free 6+++

Not entirely true.

Wraithguards, Wraithblades, Dark Reapers, Wraithknights, Guardians, etc. all do not have fly.

Silly knee-jerk reactions aside, this would make the trait balanced in that you actually consider what trait is best for your army.

How long till the whole brb is replaced by faqs and errata and is totally useless

gendoikari87 wrote:
How long till the whole brb is replaced by faqs and errata and is totally useless

I was considering this earlier, and it is already the case. I can't read the rules and trust them because I don't know if they are true or not, at least without checking faqs.

ERJAK wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:
Any unit is granted cover by a ruin, as long as every model within the unit is within the cover (toe in) and 50% obscured.

Nope. ENTIRELY on or in. Whole model has to be inside the base of the ruin. You been playin wrong brosef, gotta keep up on your FAQs. BRB Errata for pg 248.

That's the UNIT entirely in, as in every model needs to be in cover. Not the individual models' bases needs to be entirely contained within the cover.

Yeah it's a subtle but important distinction.

If the single model unit isn't on the base, the unit isn't entirely in either. Of course there's no way to prove that. This is another case of GW faqs making things worse rather than better.

Regardless, it still ends up the same. Cover is almost impossible to get on most tables for anything bigger than a dreadnought. Even being toe-in, being 50% obscured is very difficult with most ruins. Especially if the enemy can move and shoot. It would be easier than wholly within, but not by much.

Can I also point out how irritating it is that the example given in the FAQ doesn't use or address the word 'entirely' at all? So either way you're pretty much guessing what they mean by 'entirely' when that question would have been a perfect place to spell it out. Is 'entirely' synonymous with 'wholly'? If it's not why include it at all when your definition of 'within' would then make the qualifier 'entirely' pointlessly redundant.

Every time I think they're starting to get it...

It's extremely easy actually. I always have all my monsters in cover first turn with my nids and my brother always manages to put all his vehicles in cover first turn (except for flyers).

Reread the FAQ, you don't need to cover it with the ruin, anything counts. If i put the toe of my fex in cover and then i have a neurothrope in front of it, that's a fex in cover.
If my predator has a toe in cover and a couple of intercessors in front, that predator is in cover. If you are really good a this, you can even use enemy models to obscure your models.

It's a bit more difficult with guards since leman russes are big and guards small, but not nearly as difficult as covering a wave serpent.

 Marmatag wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
That is correct.

However if they follow Jormungandr, it will not apply to models with FLY keyword. So, no 2+ Hemlocks. Would be my guess.

This would make Alaitoc worthless as jet bikes, grav tanks, etc all have fly. If that happens, Everyone will play Ulthwe for the free 6+++

Not entirely true.

Wraithguards, Wraithblades, Dark Reapers, Wraithknights, Guardians, etc. all do not have fly.

Silly knee-jerk reactions aside, this would make the trait balanced in that you actually consider what trait is best for your army.

I made an Alaitoc Windrider Host themed army in 7th edition when the codex came out. I have 12 x jet bikes, 3x vypers, and a full seer council on bikes in addition to my Skyrunner Autarch. Alaitoc would do nothing for that portion of my Army, so why would I use that trait other than the fact that its how my army is painted and it matches the fluff?
The other CWE traits (assuming they are not adjusted in any manner) would all continue to affect the entire Army in some way.
Saim-Hann: Reroll charges across the army + bonus to bikers for moving with heavy weapons
Iyanden: Can't lose more than 1 to morale + bonus to damage chart models
Biel-tan: Shuriken Weapons reroll 1's + bonus LD to aspects
Ulthwe: Army wide 6+++
Alaitoc: Non-flyers get +1 cover (although it remains to be seen whether this cover would be applied always or as a bonus when in cover)

You're absolutely correct in that it would make CWE players think about the best trait for their Army, but it would make the Alaitoc train pretty tough to take over other choices (especially if the cover save is just a bonus when already in cover)

I could see Alaitoc not applying to units with the FLYER battlefield role, but to deny it from applying to units with the FLY keyword takes it away fro half the army (or in my personal case 95% of my army)

I hope CA makes Windriders less than 20ppm (even upgraded) if they plan to remove all decent traits for them.
Saim-Hann is a joke for them as they do NOT wish to charge, nor do you want Scatter lasers on them (Shuricannon benefits from BF and statistically kills more models)
Iyanden does nothing for them
Biel-tan is an offensive bonus only (and they NEED a defensive bonus at their current price point)
Ulthwe is a joke (seriously 6+++ does nothing to keep them alive)
and If Alaitoc only grants additional cover to non-Fly models, WRs will officially be dead

-

 Marmatag wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
That is correct.

However if they follow Jormungandr, it will not apply to models with FLY keyword. So, no 2+ Hemlocks. Would be my guess.

This would make Alaitoc worthless as jet bikes, grav tanks, etc all have fly. If that happens, Everyone will play Ulthwe for the free 6+++

Not entirely true.

Wraithguards, Wraithblades, Dark Reapers, Wraithknights, Guardians, etc. all do not have fly.

Silly knee-jerk reactions aside, this would make the trait balanced in that you actually consider what trait is best for your army.

You're not serious are you? It wouldn't be a consideration at all in that situation.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
That is correct.

However if they follow Jormungandr, it will not apply to models with FLY keyword. So, no 2+ Hemlocks. Would be my guess.

This would make Alaitoc worthless as jet bikes, grav tanks, etc all have fly. If that happens, Everyone will play Ulthwe for the free 6+++

Iron Hands have the 6+++ and I know from experience it doesn't feel like it does much.