|
Post by gigasnail on Feb 14, 2014 23:44:41 GMT
IIRC he failrd a LD check for shooting casualties. Why would he roll on the IB chart?
|
|
|
Post by daboarder on Feb 14, 2014 23:47:46 GMT
your both right, mobugs has already linked to the thread that has my breakdown of the cover rules, the 25% may apply to models, but the "you get a cover save despite being fully visible from the gaps" clearly doesnt, and there are ALWAYS gaps. As I recall... your 'breakdown' was based on the concept that when GW used the exact same phrase in different places, they 'really meant' two different things. Convenient. And no, there are not 'always' gaps. Place 10-15 gaunts in a circular blob, in base contact... no gaps. And you still ignore the entire concept of "in the same way".... (Well, you just assume that when they say 'same way' they really meant 'somewhat similar but different'.) no it was based on when they use the phrase in the only two places in the book they meant the SAME thing. but whatever you reckon grasshopper. edit: And I'm not the one that argued that "in cover" didn't mean you got a cover save, despite the rulebook stating you do in plain english.
|
|
|
Post by mobugs on Feb 14, 2014 23:49:33 GMT
I believe that intervening units provide a cover save "in the same way" as intervening terrain. IOW, just needs to obscure 25% of the target model. So it is easy for a shorter model to provide cover to a larger model. The problem is some folks are insisting that you should ignore the "in the same way" part of the sentence. So you *don't* treat it the same as intervening models. I am bringing up the last sentence to show how that interpretation leads to very poor results. (Like the ones you mention) Same old argument as before. You want to focus on the small print and say its trying to tell us to go to a previous paragraph talking about a different type of cover save and use the same rules as that instead of focusing on the BOLD emphasized beginning part of the sentence that tells us how intervening units are supposed to be treated for cover. If intervening units really were supposed to be done as 25% why wouldn't they have just added them to the terrain chart? Why bother defining intervening safe in its own paragraph and emphasize it?
Like I said same old argument, it's not going to get solved here between us. The only way for it to be resolved is an FAQ from GW
|
|
|
Post by Squire on Feb 14, 2014 23:50:18 GMT
I agree with mobugs here, for a few reasons. The first being a few points in the paragraph in question (I'll outline them) and the second being the reductio ad absurdum of coredump's interpretation. Here is the full paragraph, so we can stop quoting pieces and see the whole thing together (please tell me if this is breaking any rules, but I think it's fine as all of this text already has been posted, just separately): "If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit, or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it." The key word in the paragraph that seems to be ignored here is "similarly". This separates the two parts of the paragraph. The first deals with targets that are partially hidden from the firer's view. The second deals with targets that are completely visible to the firer. Targets completely visible to the firer do not receive cover from intervening units if the shots go over the intervening unit. Targets partially hidden from the firer's view always receive cover from intervening units, regardless of whether or not the shots go over the intervening unit, between models, or off to the side. Do you see how that works? This is why the "elevation" example makes sense, because the difference in elevation would mean that the intervening unit does not obscure at all the target, and as such could not provide cover. But as long as it does partially obscure the target, the target receives the cover save. And this makes sense, because if coredump is correct, then it would be impossible for any model to ever be granted cover by a shorter model. An Ork Nob that is 80% obscured by a Boy in front of him would not be granted cover because a player could claim that the shots are going "over" the boy to hit the only part of the Nob that can be seen. This is absurd. The sentences about shots going over models refers to a unit A standing on a hill shooting over enemy unit B to hit enemy unit C, where unit unit B doesn't get in the way of the unit C at all. The first sentence (before Similarly) can be referring to a unit that covers some of another unit, for example a chimera sitting in front of 30 conscripts covers some of the conscripts. The second sentence (beginning with Similarly) can be referring to a unit completely screened by another unit, for example a line of four hormagaunts standing behind a line of 10 termagants. The cases are a little different, hence the 'similarly. In the first case (first sentence of the rule) imagine the chimera is blocking clear line of sight to more than 25% of the models in the conscript unit- the unit gets a cover save. Realistically you'd just focus fire in this case. In the second case the hormagaunts are standing behind the termagants and a unit shooting the hormies is shooting through the termagants. The word similarly was written to prevent people saying 'Well I can see your librarian completely clearly through the gap between the two space marines in front of him' (imagine the two marines are in a separate unit and the librarian is on his own) and then claiming the model isn't covered because 25% of him isn't obscured. That's why the second sentence was written- so a screening unit doesn't have to be standing with their bases touching to cover whatever is behind them Your example with the orks is wrong because you're making the assumption that shots going over models is about aiming up to shoot something taller behind the screen, but it's really referring to units shooting from a higher elevation such that their target (from the bases up) is completely visible and they aren't shooting between gaps in an intervening unit edit; I went away for a bit while I was writing that... looks like the conversation has moved on a bit
|
|
|
Post by mobugs on Feb 14, 2014 23:51:24 GMT
IIRC he failrd a LD check for shooting casualties. Why would he roll on the IB chart? He said he lost his daisy chain to the synapse and that's why he was rolling LD, now if he rolled a 1-3 then yea it's fall back. But if he was automatically falling back wouldn't that be wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Magorian on Feb 14, 2014 23:51:50 GMT
coredumpThat makes more sense, as I can see "partially hidden" being defined as 25%. The possible qualm comes from "in the same way as intervening terrain", as you put it, or "in the same way as if it was behind terrain." as the rule book puts it. As you phrased it, it could only mean that the rules for determining cover saves from intervening units were the same as those for terrain. The rule book is somewhat more ambiguous. "In the same way as if it was behind terrain" could mean that what was the same was that cover is granted, not the method for determining cover. This is because "as if it was behind terrain" could mean "as if 25% obscured by terrain". I'm rather torn between which to use. Your interpretation makes sense, as rippers granting cover to Trygons like terrain would is hilarious, but conversely the reasons units provide cover differ from the reasons terrain can provide cover. And those differences should affect how saves are determined. In regards to terrain, a unit is using the terrain as a shield. With units, the reasons vary more widely, and have more to do with the choices of the firer. A ripper won't get in the way of a shot aimed at a Trygon like a wall would, but it might make the firer hesitate (not shoot at all) or miss because of the distraction a swarm of vicious creatures charging at you might create. Edit: Further thinking pulls me back towards disagreement. If the 25% mattered, there wouldn't be a rule about targets being completely visible between the models of an intervening unit. Such a rule would never need clarification, as it would always be trumped by the percentage of the target that was obscured. Can you see it completely unobscured between those models? Great, no cover allowed. Further, the "seeing over" sentence, as I said, can only apply to models that are completely visible. Completely visible =/= less than 25% obscured. Can you see the Carnifex over the gaunts? Yes. Is it completely visible? No. Edit 2: Wow, quick reply doesn't tell me that there have been more posts while I was typing. Reading them now.
|
|
|
Post by daboarder on Feb 14, 2014 23:54:16 GMT
Ok I'm going to re-iterate my argument very carefully. At the start of page 81 we have this quote This paragraph tells us that whenever a model is "partially hidden" or "Obscured" it is deemed "in cover" and entitled to a "cover save" We all agree that this is what the paragraph says? Good, then we need to know how to determine when a model is "Partially hidden" or "Obscured" as the above paragraph does not define those situations. Those situations are then defined in the next two segments, each one individually. First we have This is the only place in the rulebook where "obscured" is defined, as in the target is blocked 25% from LOS. (NB: this is redefined in vehicles section for their specific cases) Then we have the next segment. This segment defines "Partially hidden" as in the target unit is "partially hidden" by intervening enemy models. Again this is the only way the rulebook allows you to be "partially hidden" and thus "in cover" and thus granted a cover save Core has made the assertion that there exists statements in the rulebook that use the term "in cover" to refer to situations other than these two specific case, the rulebook never mentions "in cover" other than in reference to those two situations. to make it clear, if a model is 1% covered by terrain it is not "in cover" and nowhere in the rulebook makes that statement. therefore we can determine that if you shoot a target through an enemy unit they will gain a 5+ cover save. This is because the only way to be "obscured" or "partially hidden" and therefore "in cover" is to be either 25% obscured by anything OR intervening enemy models. EDIT: continued support. Core has also made the claim that if a model is "In Cover" it does not get a cover save despite the first statement. If this was the case then none of the cover mechanics throughout the rest of the book would work as they all rely on the statement "in cover" If you accept cores assertion that "in cover" dose bot entitle a unit to a cover save then the rulebook is fundamentally flawed. and as pointed out above, shooting OVER only omes into play when you are standing on a hill, building, ruin etc
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Feb 14, 2014 23:58:23 GMT
IIRC he failrd a LD check for shooting casualties. Why would he roll on the IB chart? He said he lost his daisy chain to the synapse and that's why he was rolling LD, now if he rolled a 1-3 then yea it's fall back. But if he was automatically falling back wouldn't that be wrong? He lost models due to a barrage hit, causing the unit to 1) no longer be in synapse, 2) so no longer fearless, and 3) took an LD test due to casualties. He failed this LD test and was destroyed due to the Trapped rule. None of this causea you to roll IB.
|
|
|
Post by Magorian on Feb 14, 2014 23:58:37 GMT
The sentences about shots going over models refers to a unit A standing on a hill shooting over enemy unit B to hit enemy unit C, where unit unit B doesn't get in the way of the unit C at all. The first sentence (before Similarly) can be referring to a unit that covers some of another unit, for example a chimera sitting in front of 30 conscripts covers some of the conscripts. The second sentence (beginning with Similarly) can be referring to a unit completely screened by another unit, for example a line of four hormagaunts standing behind a line of 10 termagants. The cases are a little different, hence the 'similarly. In the first case (first sentence of the rule) imagine the chimera is blocking clear line of sight to more than 25% of the models in the conscript unit- the unit gets a cover save. Realistically you'd just focus fire in this case. In the second case the hormagaunts are standing behind the termagants and a unit shooting the hormies is shooting through the termagants. The word similarly was written to prevent people saying 'Well I can see your librarian completely clearly through the gap between the two space marines in front of him' (imagine the two marines are in a separate unit and the librarian is on his own) and then claiming the model isn't covered because 25% of him isn't obscured. That's why the second sentence was written- so a screening unit doesn't have to be standing with their bases touching to cover whatever is behind them Your example with the orks is wrong because you're making the assumption that shots going over models is about aiming up to shoot something taller behind the screen, but it's really referring to units shooting from a higher elevation such that their target (from the bases up) is completely visible and they aren't shooting between gaps in an intervening unit edit; I went away for a bit while I was writing that... looks like the conversation has moved on a bit We're in agreement. I'm arguing against the people who are claiming that you can ignore the cover presented by a shorter screen. I even cited the elevation example.
|
|
|
Post by gloomfang on Feb 15, 2014 0:08:37 GMT
IIRC he failrd a LD check for shooting casualties. Why would he roll on the IB chart? He said he lost his daisy chain to the synapse and that's why he was rolling LD, now if he rolled a 1-3 then yea it's fall back. But if he was automatically falling back wouldn't that be wrong? Giga is right. They shot the unit so that they had no models within 12" of a synapse creature so I lost Fearless. I then lost 8 gaunts out of a 30 gaunt unit and that cause me to take a casualty check as I no longer had Fearless. As for the people who asked about being Trapped. I knew he had the flamer unit (It was a 5 man squad with 3 flamers) in a pod so I bubble wrapped my venoms thinking that I would keep the the flamers from getting to the venoms. I had a setup with a big piece of impassable terrain to one side as cover and the venoms of and to the right of the unit. He dropped the pod and marines behind my big gaunt unit, flamed the ones near the venoms and Prime that was attached as a synapse core. I had spread the venoms out in a line to maximize the shrouding. Problems was when I went to flee I couldn't go left because of terrain, back because of the marines and I couldn't go to the right becasue of the venom/Prime brood. BIG EDIT: Now I remember that we had a big rules fight. Anyone who can help I would appreciate it. I thought that I could flee into synapse and autorally. He said that due to the Trapped rule that if I couldn't make a move that would let me escape without doubling back or go through impassible terrain or another unit that I couldn't move at all. I conceded that I would not be able to proceed towards the board edge without doubling back or going through a unit. So I was destroyed instead of moving the 4" back into synaspe as part of fleeing.
Might move this to a new thread as it pissed me off at the time. Feels like an age ago though with everything that has happened since.
|
|
|
Post by Squire on Feb 15, 2014 0:16:36 GMT
We're in agreement. I'm arguing against the people who are claiming that you can ignore the cover presented by a shorter screen. I even cited the elevation example. I'm not sure we are. I'm saying that you can ignore the cover of an intervening unit if the unit and space between models covers less than 25% of the target unit. To avoid confusion this is my stance, which I believe is supported by the RAW (and RAI for that matter) 1. A genestealer stands behind two termagants (separate units) and despite the space between the two termagants offering clear unobstructed line of sight to the genestealer, the stealer gets a cover save because you can't simply claim to be shooting through the gap between the two termagants. 2. A line of (say, 10) termagants stands in front of three warriors. Despite the warriors being a bit taller, the termagant models and space between those models covers over 25% of the warriors, so the warriors get a cover save 3. A line of ten termagants stands in front of a trygon. The line of termagants and space between them covers less than 25% of the trygon, so no cover save for the trygon. In all three examples above the termagants could effectively be replaced by an actual piece of terrain, say a fence the height and width of the termagant unit. It isn't a solid wall so example 1 still holds, because shots can still go through the fence. I still don't see convincing arguments to explain why intervening models don't act the way I've described in those examples. They act in the same way as terrain
|
|
|
Post by Magorian on Feb 15, 2014 0:26:01 GMT
That's all well and good (you essentially agree with coredump), but that's not entirely what you said in your first reply to me. You thought you were contradicting what I said about shooting over a target, when we basically agree on that point.
Where we disagree, then, is the percentage question. Which I didn't mention at all in the post to which you were replying because I did not yet fully understand what coredump was saying from the posts he had made so far in this thread (it's more clear in the previous discussion that was linked to).
For that topic, refer to my last reply to coredump. I'll quote it here:
"That makes more sense, as I can see "partially hidden" being defined as 25%. The possible qualm comes from "in the same way as intervening terrain", as you put it, or "in the same way as if it was behind terrain." as the rule book puts it. As you phrased it, it could only mean that the rules for determining cover saves from intervening units were the same as those for terrain. The rule book is somewhat more ambiguous. "In the same way as if it was behind terrain" could mean that what was the same was that cover is granted, not the method for determining cover. This is because "as if it was behind terrain" could mean "as if 25% obscured by terrain".
I'm rather torn between which to use. Your interpretation makes sense, as rippers granting cover to Trygons like terrain would is hilarious, but conversely the reasons units provide cover differ from the reasons terrain can provide cover. And those differences should affect how saves are determined. In regards to terrain, a unit is using the terrain as a shield. With units, the reasons vary more widely, and have more to do with the choices of the firer. A ripper won't get in the way of a shot aimed at a Trygon like a wall would, but it might make the firer hesitate (not shoot at all) or miss because of the distraction a swarm of vicious creatures charging at you might create.
Edit: Further thinking pulls me back towards disagreement. If the 25% mattered, there wouldn't be a rule about targets being completely visible between the models of an intervening unit. Such a rule would never need clarification, as it would always be trumped by the percentage of the target that was obscured. Can you see it completely unobscured between those models? Great, no cover allowed. Further, the "seeing over" sentence, as I said, can only apply to models that are completely visible. Completely visible =/= less than 25% obscured. Can you see the Carnifex over the gaunts? Yes. Is it completely visible? No."
I disagree with the 25% cover rule applying to intervening units because of the reasons for which intervening units are said to provide cover, which differ greatly from how terrain is said to provide cover. Further, the way the "seeing over" sentence relates to the seeing between models demonstrates that point.
|
|
|
Post by daboarder on Feb 15, 2014 0:28:35 GMT
3. A line of ten termagants stands in front of a trygon. The line of termagants and space between them covers less than 25% of the trygon, so no cover save for the trygon. regardless of the outcome of that discussion a gaunt line is plenty to grant a trygon cover, ignorign weapons vens, wings and the like as the rules say a trygon is onlly roughly 4 gants high or 8 in in volume of silhouette, and the 4 that go along the base are more than enough to cover 25% of the model, the tail does count ya know.
|
|
|
Post by Squire on Feb 15, 2014 0:39:39 GMT
That's all well and good (you essentially agree with coredump), but that's not entirely what you said in your first reply to me. You thought you were contradicting what I said about shooting over a target, when we basically agree on that point. Where we disagree, then, is the percentage question. Which I didn't mention at all in the post to which you were replying because I did not yet fully understand what coredump was saying from the posts he had made so far in this thread (it's more clear in the previous discussion that was linked to). For that topic, refer to my last reply to coredump. I'll quote it here: "That makes more sense, as I can see "partially hidden" being defined as 25%. The possible qualm comes from "in the same way as intervening terrain", as you put it, or "in the same way as if it was behind terrain." as the rule book puts it. As you phrased it, it could only mean that the rules for determining cover saves from intervening units were the same as those for terrain. The rule book is somewhat more ambiguous. "In the same way as if it was behind terrain" could mean that what was the same was that cover is granted, not the method for determining cover. This is because "as if it was behind terrain" could mean "as if 25% obscured by terrain". I'm rather torn between which to use. Your interpretation makes sense, as rippers granting cover to Trygons like terrain would is hilarious, but conversely the reasons units provide cover differ from the reasons terrain can provide cover. And those differences should affect how saves are determined. In regards to terrain, a unit is using the terrain as a shield. With units, the reasons vary more widely, and have more to do with the choices of the firer. A ripper won't get in the way of a shot aimed at a Trygon like a wall would, but it might make the firer hesitate (not shoot at all) or miss because of the distraction a swarm of vicious creatures charging at you might create. Edit: Further thinking pulls me back towards disagreement. If the 25% mattered, there wouldn't be a rule about targets being completely visible between the models of an intervening unit. Such a rule would never need clarification, as it would always be trumped by the percentage of the target that was obscured. Can you see it completely unobscured between those models? Great, no cover allowed. Further, the "seeing over" sentence, as I said, can only apply to models that are completely visible. Completely visible =/= less than 25% obscured. Can you see the Carnifex over the gaunts? Yes. Is it completely visible? No." I disagree with the 25% cover rule applying to intervening units because of the reasons for which intervening units are said to provide cover, which differ greatly from how terrain is said to provide cover. Further, the way the "seeing over" sentence relates to the seeing between models demonstrates that point. Okay, I can see what you're getting at now. I still believe coredump's interpretation is the correct one but I can see why GW need to FAQ this to make themselves more clear For the time being I'll play it the way I interpret the rule to mean, and if the opponent takes issue with that I can probably only benefit from playing it their way 3. A line of ten termagants stands in front of a trygon. The line of termagants and space between them covers less than 25% of the trygon, so no cover save for the trygon. regardless of the outcome of that discussion a gaunt line is plenty to grant a trygon cover, ignorign weapons vens, wings and the like as the rules say a trygon is onlly roughly 4 gants high or 8 in in volume of silhouette, and the 4 that go along the base are more than enough to cover 25% of the model, the tail does count ya know. I've seen this one come up a couple of times. I'm not familiar enough with the rule on what counts at the true target area of a creature with a big tail, or whether it should even count as a regular tail on a serpentine creature like a trygon/mawloc... I'll leave this one alone. My mawloc won't start on the board on T1 any more so I'm not going to concern myself with this
|
|
|
Post by Magorian on Feb 15, 2014 0:44:14 GMT
Okay, I can see what you're getting at now. I still believe coredump's interpretation is the correct one but I can see why GW need to FAQ this to make themselves more clear For the time being I'll play it the way I interpret the rule to mean, and if the opponent takes issue with that I can probably only benefit from playing it their way It certainly has some ambiguity. Thankfully, it's nothing a quick roll off can't handle, if there's a disagreement, until GW manages to clarify.
|
|