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.

EDIT: Anyone know how I can show this image or webpage?

If you look at this link (I can't post links) and scroll down to where it talks about the "obstacle" terrain feature, there is useful image explaining how it works. In ref to the image I just want to see if I understand it correctly.

Assume I am the attacker and on the far right middle (so that if I shoot any model, the obstacle is in the way) and I am in range of all models. It's obvious that if I target any of the models wthin 3" of the obstacle they get the benefit of cover. However, since I am also n range of the model outside of cover, can i declare this as the target, which will effectively mean the cover bonus would not apply to the entire unit?

I've read some conflicting stuff on this, because when I read everything about targetting, the rules always talk about targetting a unit, and not a model. Something else I read is that a unit doesn't get the benefit of cover anyway unless all models are in said area. Can someone elaborate on this for me?

Also, reading about the 3" range bonus for obstacles led me to another thought in regards to ruins. You would assume that a ruin would provide more cover than an obstacle, but the 3" in range part doesn't apply to them. Ruins also are "obscuring". So my interpretation of this is that, you only get the light cover bonus for ruins if I am IN the area, in which case I would be obscured anyway, in which case I can't even shoot my enemy. So strangely, it would seem that an obstacle would be better for cover as you get the bonus but can still shoot the enemy whereas with a ruin you cannot; lore wise this seems like it should be the other way around. I am sure I am missing something here so would be grateful if someone could explain what!

thanks,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Assume I am the attacker and on the far right middle (so that if I shoot any model, the obstacle is in the way) and I am in range of all models. It's obvious that if I target any of the models wthin 3" of the obstacle they get the benefit of cover. However, since I am also n range of the model outside of cover, can i declare this as the target, which will effectively mean the cover bonus would not apply to the entire unit?

I've read some conflicting stuff on this, because when I read everything about targetting, the rules always talk about targetting a unit, and not a model. Something else I read is that a unit doesn't get the benefit of cover anyway unless all models are in said area. Can someone elaborate on this for me?

You target units, but models receive the benefit of cover. As part of the shooting sequence, the player controlling the unit being shot must allocate attacks amongst the target unit after the attacher has rolled to wound. If the attack is allocated to a model that is receiving the benefit of light cover, then the defender gets to add +1 to their saving throw (except with Invulnerable saves).

So, in your example, assuming that all the Tactical Marines are in the same squad: you declare that you are targeting them, you roll to hit and then you roll to wound. Your opponent then allocates the attacks against models one at a time, rolling to save until that model is dead or you run out of attacks to allocate. Each attack that was allocated against a model receiving the benefit of light cover allows the defender to add 1 to the armour saving throw for that attack.

You mention that you've read things that say the whole unit must be in cover, but IIRC that was an 8th edition thing. When searching articles and discussions for rules advice, make sure you check the publication date as it may be for the wrong edition.

Also, reading about the 3" range bonus for obstacles led me to another thought in regards to ruins. You would assume that a ruin would provide more cover than an obstacle, but the 3" in range part doesn't apply to them. Ruins also are "obscuring". So my interpretation of this is that, you only get the light cover bonus for ruins if I am IN the area, in which case I would be obscured anyway, in which case I can't even shoot my enemy. So strangely, it would seem that an obstacle would be better for cover as you get the bonus but can still shoot the enemy whereas with a ruin you cannot; lore wise this seems like it should be the other way around. I am sure I am missing something here so would be grateful if someone could explain what!

Obscuring doesn't simply block LoS completely; models on or within the boundary of the terrain can both see and be seen as normal (see the Core Book errata, p3 for the amended wording on this).

So, essentially you do get better cover by being in a Ruin, since all a model needs to do is be within the boundary of the area terrain to get the benefit; on the other hand, a model has to be both within 3" of and standing behind a Barricade in order to get the benefit of cover from it.

Thanks, I see now. The reason it was so confusing to me is that I though light cover affected you BS skill other thanSV. This would have meant it is not applicable to models but the unit instead since BS is in the attach phase. Makes sense now thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So now I know that and just read some more I still think an obstacle is a better defence than a ruin. Here is an example of why.

Let's say we have an obstacle which is like a wall at waist height and I have a 5 man unit that fit quite snuggly behind it. Now do the same with a ruin where the same unit sits behind inside it near the windows. In both situations all my models get the ligh cover bonus, but with the obstacle, all my models (5) will have LOS to the enemy unit (assuming they are in the open for this example). However, the same can't be said for being behind a ruin due to windows and "obscuring"; let's say only 3 models have LOS on the enemy unit. So now when I attack I can only make 3 attacks, whereas with the the obstacle I could make 5. When the enemy returns fire, in BOTH cases he only needs LOS on one model (which he will have) so he can unload everything at me. I fail to the see how ruins are better, what am I missing?

NOTE: I am aware, that in the wounds phase, if I remove the models that the enemy can see, they can't find more weapons as LOS will now be broken, but most encounters is one unit with one set of weapons meaning this benefit rarely takes effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wow, I just read a way better description of how obscuring works than what is in the official book - most of the descriptions are pretty poor imo.

So I think the issue I had was understanding how obscuring works, it seems it only blocks LOS both attacker and defender are not in the zone; how easy was that as a description?? Why can't it say that in offical rules? It's very unintutive because, you know, we all know how LOS has worked for decades, and it's the same in any game you will ever play - trace a line, if you see it then you can shoot it. In the case of a ruin though, if I had a model behind a wall then LOS would not be possible (in other games), but it seems this weird rule effectively makes the wall invisible if any model is in the area. Please correct me if wrong. If I am correct in this then I now see how it is better (or at the least, just the same as obstacles in terms of benefits)

So now I know that and just read some more I still think an obstacle is a better defence than a ruin. Here is an example of why.

Let's say we have an obstacle which is like a wall at waist height and I have a 5 man unit that fit quite snuggly behind it. Now do the same with a ruin where the same unit sits behind inside it near the windows. In both situations all my models get the ligh cover bonus, but with the obstacle, all my models (5) will have LOS to the enemy unit (assuming they are in the open for this example). However, the same can't be said for being behind a ruin due to windows and "obscuring"; let's say only 3 models have LOS on the enemy unit. So now when I attack I can only make 3 attacks, whereas with the the obstacle I could make 5. When the enemy returns fire, in BOTH cases he only needs LOS on one model (which he will have) so he can unload everything at me. I fail to the see how ruins are better, what am I missing?

Ruins can fit more models more easily, so it might not make much difference for a 5-man squad, but a 10-man squad will be able to fit more into cover.

You also don't have to be behind the walls, just within the area you and your opponent defined before the game. If the ruin has a base, then that means simply being on the base; if the ruin has extra floors, then that means standing on the floors. It also means that you can outflank a barricade to deny the enemy the benefit of cover, whereas you cannot do the same with ruins (because you get the save bonus regardless of the direction of the shooting, even if the shooter can fully see the target model).

So I think the issue I had was understanding how obscuring works, it seems it only blocks LOS both attacker and defender are not in the zone; how easy was that as a description?? Why can't it say that in offical rules?

To be fair, they cleared up the wording in the errata to basically say just that. But yeah, it shouldn't have been that hard to do in the first place...