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.

Do you do 50% as seen from the shooter's eyes (which in some cases might be 0% but still a valid target due to LoS from another body part)?

Do you do 50% as seen from a point on the attacker's body, chosen by the attacker?

Do you attempt to determine the average percentage of the target visible from all points of the attacker to all points of the defender?

Do you care about 50% of the surface or 50% of the volume? For example, I could see the top of a Land Raider, over a wall, and it's front, but the left side was hidden. I could see most of the surface area facing me, but the bulk of the model was still hidden.

This feels so simple but the last game I was in we happened to have all of these questions come up and I had no answer.

50% obscured from any point of every model in the shooting unit.

Fragile wrote:
50% obscured from any point of every model in the shooting unit.

Isn't cover model-by-model (from the attacker) and not as a unit?

 Deathypoo wrote:

Fragile wrote:
50% obscured from any point of every model in the shooting unit.

Isn't cover model-by-model (from the attacker) and not as a unit?

Although they FAQ'd parts of the advanced terrain rules to make it seem like that, the game's rules literally cannot function properly if you're trying to play that models in the firing unit can have the benefit of cover from some models in the shooting unit but not from others (and I do have this question on the FAQ list to GW because of this).

Specifically:

1) The rules say you can roll all you 'hit' and 'wound' dice together if the weapons have the same characteristics and the BS of the models firing them is identical. Yet, if the rules really are supposed to be that some of those shots aren't giving the benefit of cover to their targets while others are, then you literally cannot use the fast dice rolling rules as written (as you'd obviously have to keep track of exactly which dice are from which firing models).

2) In one of the FAQs GW put out (the 'designer's commentary' PDF) they clarify that it is possible for a unit to suddenly gain the benefit of cover during a round of shooting immediately when you remove the last casualty that is out of cover. If you're playing that each individual firing model has to determine whether their shots are affected by cover or not, that would now mean that instead of just trying to keep track of which firing models shots are getting the benefit of cover and which are not, you would literally have to keep track of each individual firing model shots separately so you would be able to tell after each casualty gets removed whether the shot from the next firing model should be getting the benefit of cover or not (as it could vary between firing model to firing model).


Therefore, I believe the way most people are still playing it (and the way I do believe GW intends) is that, when it comes to taking a saving throw against a successful wound, you check from each model in the firing unit to see if the entire enemy unit meets the criteria to benefit from cover. If any of these enemy models do not meet the criteria to benefit from cover, then the wound being saved does not benefit from cover.

huh. Honestly the logic seems a little convoluted to me, but I guess I can't bring up a clear argument against it.

I'm still not sure about this part though:

"Do you care about 50% of the surface or 50% of the volume? For example, I could see the top of a Land Raider, over a wall, and it's front, but the left side was hidden. I could see most of the surface area facing me, but the bulk of the model was still hidden."

 Deathypoo wrote:
huh. Honestly the logic seems a little convoluted to me, but I guess I can't bring up a clear argument against it.

I'm still not sure about this part though:

"Do you care about 50% of the surface or 50% of the volume? For example, I could see the top of a Land Raider, over a wall, and it's front, but the left side was hidden. I could see most of the surface area facing me, but the bulk of the model was still hidden."

There's no way to get a conclusive answer on this because all we have access to is the very general '50%' guideline given to us in the rules, and its very unlikely that GW would ever try to address that particular question in a FAQ because the infinite variables involved between all different shapes/sizes of models and terrain makes it pretty hard to make a blanket statement that both makes sense and doesn't have a ton of loopholes to be exploited by those looking to do so.

So by leaving it very general/vague, they ensure that players will simply have to agree between themselves what they think is '50%'. That's obviously not a solution some players enjoy dealing with (the uncertainty of not knowing whether your opponent will agree with your assessment or not), but there's really not much else GW could do with the way they're currently trying to keep their rules super small/simple. They just don't have the space to but in diagrams/examples for stuff like this (although I still argue that they could have been a little more thorough in the 'battlefield terrain' rules section, since its in the 'advanced rules' section).


---


And going back to expand upon my first answer to you, here's a little example to show you what I mean:

1) I have a unit of 10 Space Marines with boltguns firing at a unit of 5 Ork Warbikers that are entirely on a piece of forest area terrain.
2) The rules tell me to check range and visibility for all my Primaris models. They are all in range and can see at least one of the Ork Warbikers, so can all fire.
3) I then choose to use the 'fast dice rolling' method to roll all the 'hit' and 'wound' rolls together (as the rules say I can do). I end up with 5 successful wounds.
4) The Ork player then has to allocate one of those successful wounds to one of his Warbikers, which he does.
5) At this point, the question now is: do the Warbikers get the benefit of cover? Looking from the point of view of my Space Marines, 5 of them can see 1 Warbiker more than 50%, but the other 5 have their vision 50% obscured to all 5 Warbikers.

So if you're trying to play that each firing model's shots can potentially gain the benefit of cover or not, what do you do here? You have 5 wounds that you have no idea which particular space marine model that they came from. The only way to play (that makes any sense) is to say that the Ork unit does not get the benefit of cover so long as ANY model in the space marine unit can see more than 50% of at least one Ork Warbiker. But as soon as that 1 Warbiker than can be seen more than 50% gets removed as a casualty, then the remaining wounds are immediately resolved utilizing the benefit of cover (which follows GW's FAQ ruling).

You're already interrupting the fast rolling to roll the saves for the guy without cover first. If different shooting models had different cover perspectives, you just break up the fast rolling sooner.

But you're right, RAW certainly states that you can fast roll without any consideration for cover.

 Deathypoo wrote:
You're already interrupting the fast rolling to roll the saves for the guy without cover first. If different shooting models had different cover perspectives, you just break up the fast rolling sooner.

But you're right, RAW certainly states that you can fast roll without any consideration for cover.

No re-read the section on fast dice rolling. It ONLY applies to 'hit' and 'wound' rolls. Wound allocation and saving throws are always done one at a time.

 yakface wrote:

 Deathypoo wrote:
huh. Honestly the logic seems a little convoluted to me, but I guess I can't bring up a clear argument against it.

I'm still not sure about this part though:

"Do you care about 50% of the surface or 50% of the volume? For example, I could see the top of a Land Raider, over a wall, and it's front, but the left side was hidden. I could see most of the surface area facing me, but the bulk of the model was still hidden."

There's no way to get a conclusive answer on this because all we have access to is the very general '50%' guideline given to us in the rules, and its very unlikely that GW would ever try to address that particular question in a FAQ because the infinite variables involved between all different shapes/sizes of models and terrain makes it pretty hard to make a blanket statement that both makes sense and doesn't have a ton of loopholes to be exploited by those looking to do so.

So by leaving it very general/vague, they ensure that players will simply have to agree between themselves what they think is '50%'. That's obviously not a solution some players enjoy dealing with (the uncertainty of not knowing whether your opponent will agree with your assessment or not), but there's really not much else GW could do with the way they're currently trying to keep their rules super small/simple. They just don't have the space to but in diagrams/examples for stuff like this (although I still argue that they could have been a little more thorough in the 'battlefield terrain' rules section, since its in the 'advanced rules' section).


---


And going back to expand upon my first answer to you, here's a little example to show you what I mean:

1) I have a unit of 10 Space Marines with boltguns firing at a unit of 5 Ork Warbikers that are entirely on a piece of forest area terrain.
2) The rules tell me to check range and visibility for all my Primaris models. They are all in range and can see at least one of the Ork Warbikers, so can all fire.
3) I then choose to use the 'fast dice rolling' method to roll all the 'hit' and 'wound' rolls together (as the rules say I can do). I end up with 5 successful wounds.
4) The Ork player then has to allocate one of those successful wounds to one of his Warbikers, which he does.
5) At this point, the question now is: do the Warbikers get the benefit of cover? Looking from the point of view of my Space Marines, 5 of them can see 1 Warbiker more than 50%, but the other 5 have their vision 50% obscured to all 5 Warbikers.

So if you're trying to play that each firing model's shots can potentially gain the benefit of cover or not, what do you do here? You have 5 wounds that you have no idea which particular space marine model that they came from. The only way to play (that makes any sense) is to say that the Ork unit does not get the benefit of cover so long as ANY model in the space marine unit can see more than 50% of at least one Ork Warbiker. But as soon as that 1 Warbiker than can be seen more than 50% gets removed as a casualty, then the remaining wounds are immediately resolved utilizing the benefit of cover (which follows GW's FAQ ruling).

That's not the only way to play. There's nothing forcing you to use the fast rolling rules. You can roll each shot one at a time. "the Ork unit does not get the benefit of cover so long as ANY model in the space marine unit can see more than 50%" is not RAW. If that's the way two people want to play, I have no problem with it, but I wouldn't agree that the rules somehow force you to interpret them that way.

Pink Horror wrote:
That's not the only way to play. There's nothing forcing you to use the fast rolling rules. You can roll each shot one at a time. "the Ork unit does not get the benefit of cover so long as ANY model in the space marine unit can see more than 50%" is not RAW. If that's the way two people want to play, I have no problem with it, but I wouldn't agree that the rules somehow force you to interpret them that way.

I didn't say the rules force you to play that way. I said the rules break if you try to play by the rules if saying that cover is determined from each individual firing model.

Again, look at my example you quoted. If I'm the Space Marine player, I'm ALLOWED (by the rules) to fast roll my hits and wounds in that situation. So we get to the point where we have wounds to allocate and save. What do we do?

That's my point. You can follow the rules to the letter and then get to a point where you simply cannot proceed further because you have no idea which wounds came from which firing models.

Well you could proceed further easily but not in your strict interpretation. Just replace model with models if you have multiple shooters and it works fine.

I fire 20 conscripts
20 Roll to hit 10 miss
10 Roll to wound 5 fail to wound
5 successful
Opponent allocates to model

Are all model's in the unit in the ruin etc and 50% obscured from the point of view of all shooting models

In this case the shooting model is in fact 20 models i therefore measure from all to all (if it's close to call i would always default to granting cover)

Seems to work fine to me

U02dah4 wrote:
In this case the shooting model is in fact 20 models i therefore measure from all to all (if it's close to call i would always default to granting cover)

That's precisely how I was saying you have to play to make the rules work. However, that is quite different from people arguing that you can theoretically play where cover is determined separately for each individual firing model (which cannot work if players want to use fast dice rolling as written).

Players can do that if they wish and you'll take 10 hours to play a game and in a tournament your opponent wI'll complain to the to

 yakface wrote:

 Deathypoo wrote:
You're already interrupting the fast rolling to roll the saves for the guy without cover first. If different shooting models had different cover perspectives, you just break up the fast rolling sooner.

But you're right, RAW certainly states that you can fast roll without any consideration for cover.

No re-read the section on fast dice rolling. It ONLY applies to 'hit' and 'wound' rolls. Wound allocation and saving throws are always done one at a time.

This. Under the fast rolling rules, attacks are assumed to be one at a time, and when allocating you can resolve one at a time. Which means that if the unit making saves doesn't have a cover bonus because one model is not within it; Then as soon as that model dies from a wound allocation, putting your whole unit in cover, you can start claiming a cover save for the rest of the attacks.