Intervening models and cover saves

[coredump]

This came up in a different thread; I was going to skip it, but I wrote this up for a different site, and thought I would post it here too.

As I said in the other thread though, what really matters is how your meta agrees to play it. Whichever side you take, being 'right' doesn't really help if the other 10 people agree on the 'wrong' answer.


I don't have page numbers, so I am giving Headings:


Types of Saving Throws
Cover Saves: "Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover.

So *any* level of obscurement means you are 'in cover'. But being 'in cover' is not enough to grant a cover save, there is another requirement.

Determining cover saves: "If...the target model’s body (see General Principles) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save"

So, you need to be 'in cover' enough to be obscured 25% in order to get a cover save from terrain.

What about intervening models

Intervening models:"If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit, it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."
So according to this, you treat intervening models "in the same way" as you treat terrain. And as we saw above, terrain requires you be in cover enough to be obscured 25%.

But intervening models have a unique characteristic, and additional rule

Intervening models: " 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"
So, even the space between models is sufficient to provide cover.... but being 'in cover' is *not* sufficient to grant a cover save. You need to be in cover enough to be 25% obscured.




Intervening models still must obscure 25% of the target, the quirk is that the space between the models also counts as cover/obscurement, even if you can see through it.

[coredump]

Now lets look at the issue from the other direction. Some people believe that this sentence:

"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."

Actually means that the target is not only 'in cover', but also gets a cover save. So lets look at this more closely, and see what kind of examples this leads to.


Lets say you are shooting at a Wraithknight, and there is a single leman russ in front of it, obscuring 10% of the model. Well, there are no "gaps between models", so that rule can have no effect, so there can be no cover save allowed.

Now lets say that leman russ is part of a squadron of two, and the two are separated enough so you can see the wraithknight between the two leman russes. Now there is a gap between the 2 LRs... and you can see the WK through that gap; so now some people say the wraithknight would get a cover save.

So... according to their reading of the rules, if the wraithknight is obscured 10% by an actual tank, no cover save allowed, but if that same tank moves so you can see the wraithknight between the two tanks, it does get a cover save....
Just doesn't make sense.

Now, sometimes rules don't make sense. But in this case, the rule says the space between puts you "in cover", it does *NOT* say it automatically provides a cover save.
The rules do say to treat Intervening models "the same as" terrain...the terrain rules require you be in cover and be obscured 25%.

[rehkal]

I would say you get the 5+ anytime a unit is between the shooter and the target.

Terrain does not move, it (for the most part) is static. Thus it would have to cover 25% in order to be considering sufficient enough to grant cover to the unit hiding behind it.

Units are not static things. Creatures in the unit move, jump, crouch, flap and just in general move and shift about constantly. Basically, the 'height' of the units or what the unit obscures is constantly in flux. Rather than give a static percentage requirement they say to just give the cover save.

"If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit, it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain."

This sentence gives the 5+ cover save straight away after determining a unit partially obscures another target. The last bit there ('in the same way...etc') is simply stating it is like the unit is behind terrain.

What I said above also supports the last part.

"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."

Is there a unit between attacker and target even though clear line of sight can be drawn? Yes. Then the unit being fired at gets a cover save.

Remember, this isn't just a static field of battle.. our game boards are really just meant to be 'snapshots' of a constant flow of battle. The clear space between models in a unit will not always stay clear long enough for the projectile to travel through the unit.


Edit: On another note, ouch! You draw line of sight to main body/head of MCs, ignoring arms, legs, wings and tails right? Poor Dima is going to have a heck of a time getting terrain saves with those long legs.

[fleetofclaw]

Hey Core,

My response to the whole situation is why bother with the whole section if all they had to say was, "if you're obscured by anything - terrain, building, another unit or model - by 25% or more you get a cover save." I totally understand and appreciate (and am extremely bored with) all the laborious parsing the "you still need 25% obscuring" crowd goes through, but at the end of the day I would still wonder why then did GW treat intervening models like some big exception that needed a page of explaining?

If their intent was to treat intervening models identically to obscuring terrain (sans the wonky gap situation) then why muddy the waters so much? Ya ya I know it's GW, but that's a whole new level of obfuscation.

[gigasnail]

For the example of a WK behind a squadron of LRMBT:

The WK is in cover. Gee golly, it gets a cover save.

/thread

[N.I.B.]

"If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit, it receives a 5+ cover save" rest is fluff. I'm surprised you don't get tired in the arms coredump?

[glassiya]

Jul 29, 2014 15:58:05 GMT coredump said:

Now lets look at the issue from the other direction. Some people believe that this sentence:

"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, either because the firer has an elevated position or is firing a Barrage weapon, rather than through it."

[Squire]

As far as space between models goes I always imagined a wall the height of the models and as wide as the width of that unit. If that means 25% then I'd consider it a cover save

The argument doesn't bother me that much because if an opponent wants to go and claim a cover save from their guardians in front of a wraithknight I'll just cover my fexes and T-fex with termagants and have my gargoyles do something more useful. In any case it seems out of the spirit of the game to shield trygons with rippers and I'd hope people aren't trying to do that

[Jabberwocky]

I'm with squire on this one.

[glassiya]

^ this one.

[Magorian]

I've already explained my gripe with the way you interpret "the same as", so I won't repeat that here. What I haven't seen is an even remotely reasonable explanation why a unit that is 0% covered by an intervening unit would be granted a save, somehow loses that protection if it is covered even just 1% by the intervening unit, and then inexplicably regains the cover at 25%. That makes zero sense.

If 25% were the rule for intervening units, there would be no rules about targets that are completely visible, or when units fire over intervening units. 25% would be 25% and that would be it, and it would not matter if there were sight lines in between models of the intervening unit, or it the shooting unit were firing over the intervening one or to the side. It would always come down to 25% coverage, but it doesn't.

If anyone is interested in my more complete rebuttal of this particular interpretation, I'll be happy to write it up again.

[rehkal]

Jul 30, 2014 19:07:03 GMT Magorian said:

I've already explained my gripe with the way you interpret "the same as", so I won't repeat that here. What I haven't seen is an even remotely reasonable explanation why a unit that is 0% covered by an intervening unit would be granted a save, somehow loses that protection if it is covered even just 1% by the intervening unit, and then inexplicably regains the cover at 25%. That makes zero sense.

If 25% were the rule for intervening units, there would be no rules about targets that are completely visible, or when units fire over intervening units. 25% would be 25% and that would be it, and it would not matter if there were sight lines in between models of the intervening unit, or it the shooting unit were firing over the intervening one or to the side. It would always come down to 25% coverage, but it doesn't.

If anyone is interested in my more complete rebuttal of this particular interpretation, I'll be happy to write it up again.

I do not believe I have seen your rebuttal on it, I must have missed all the discussions on this issue.

(honestly it just seems as if someone found something new to poke a hole in.. Rules lawyers, can't live with'em and can't throw'em in digestion pools. )

[macdaddyt]

I've always seen the cover rule as something the GW crew has cleared up fairly well. 25% of the model obscured by the intervening object/unit/etc. equals a min of a 5+ save. Since a leman only covers 10% of a WK no matter how you slice it, the WK will never get a save for being behind any number of Lemans in any formation. The whole "gap" argument is an example of people tryng to take advantage of a small portion of RAW and is annoying. I hate when people try to break down the RAW when it's obvious what the RAI is.

[mit45]

Because the rules specify "models" of no particular alliance, could we count obscurement from enemy intervening models? Furthermore, would it be advantageous to move your units such that they are infront of a weaker enemy unit that is obscuring their heavy fire?

[daboarder]

Dear god this argument again.

In cover grants a cover save, nuff said.

Thats what the rules say.

Yes a trygon gets cover from a unit of gants