|
Post by hiveminded on Dec 21, 2014 1:34:16 GMT
I don't think the rule is even partially unclear on this point. The section entitled "Intervening Models" clearly says that if you are "partially obscured" (note, not 25% obscured, but rather just "partially" obscured) from an intervening model, you get a 5+ cover save. The next sentence says that even if the shooter is just firing through the air gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target gets a 5+ cover save even if the target is "completely visible" to the shooter. "Completely Visible" is definitely not the same as 25% obscured, so I'm not sure why there is confusion on this point....I must be missing something.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Dec 21, 2014 1:43:04 GMT
people argue that the 'just like they were behind terrain' part means you aren't obscured unless you're 25% blocked by the intervening models. this has been going on for awhile.
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Dec 21, 2014 5:29:20 GMT
This is a response I gave during an earlier discussion. The quotes are directly from the rule book under the headings indicated.
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.
Some people like to assert that the last sentence really means the space between automatically provides a cover save. But lets look at an example of this. 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 is no gaps, so that last sentence can have no effect, so there can be no cover save allowed. Now lets say that leman russ is part of a squadron, and they are separated enough so you can see the wraithknight between the two leman russes. Now there is a gap... so now some people say the wraithknight would get a cover save. So... according to their logic, if the object is obscured 10% by an actual object, no cover save, but if you can see it between two objects, yes 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. It says to treat it "the same as" terrain...which requires you be in cover and be obscured 25%.
|
|
|
Post by luke1705 on Dec 21, 2014 6:35:30 GMT
Great summation of the 25% necessity side Coredump
Basically the other side looks at that section of intervening models that says:
"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"
They then say that the sentence can be broken down to illustrate that the 5+ cover save is not conditional.
A non-ambiguous way to say what GW may be stating in that section is:
"If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit, it receives a 5+ cover save. This is exactly the same as if it was obscured by a piece of terrain."
See the subtle difference? The second statement (one made by me) says that there is no condition.
I don't intend to open up a can of worms, but it is nice to have both sides presented in one spot. I don't think that there is any way to truly understand RAI, and clearly no way to interpret RAW
|
|
|
Post by hiveminded on Dec 21, 2014 17:38:11 GMT
Hrrrm, I see the "needs 25% obscurement" argument, even though I disagree with it. This specific rule is fresh in my mind because it came up during one of my games a few weeks ago:
So, in the game, I claimed my Toxicrene had a cover save from being behind a row of Termagants. My opponent, who was trying to shoot the Toxicrene with a Venom argued that there was no way that the Toxicrene was 25% obscured. He said that the Termagants were way too short and that, besides, there were tons of room between the models to shoot through...no way it was 25% obscured, according to him. Not sure why, but his comments triggered something I had read in white dwarf #40 when the Toxicrene was released. In that book they had suggested to "Pop it [Toxicrene] behind a wall of scuttling Termagants [to get] even more protection”. We discussed this sentence in the white dwarf and then decided to check the BRB section on intervening models and cover saves. After reviewing both those items, he conceded that my Toxicrene should be granted the 5+ cover save from intervening models, which then turned into a 3+ due to shrouded.
So this is nice and all, but it's just my own personal little anecdote and doesn't really prove anything.
I can say that after hearing both arguments and re-reading the rules, the one that makes more sense to me is that all intervening models grant cover saves, regardless of whether they are 25% obscured. There's also the practical issue that if you do play it the other way, it's near impossible to accurately calculate percent obstruction from intervening models, so it's ends up being quite subjective. Things like air gap between models, little guys arms/legs sticking out, and whether the firing weapon is on the ground or maybe elevated on a vehicle, make it near impossible to determine 25% with any consistency or accuracy....much more so than just trying to judge whether a guy is 25% behind a wall or not. Opponents can negate your cover saves from intervening models simply buy saying they don't agree that it's 25% obscured.
Maybe I'm a little off-topic since I'm talking about a Toxicrene and not specifically Flyrants, so I'll shut up now.
Thanks for the summary, Coredump.
|
|
|
Post by luke1705 on Dec 22, 2014 17:14:00 GMT
Yeah the white dwarf does specifically show this, which kind of works both ways for the argument. It shows that this may be RAI/RAW; however the white dwarf has hardly been a cornerstone of rules consistency over the years
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Dec 22, 2014 22:50:54 GMT
again, if you're using WD as a rules reference...
|
|
|
Post by hiveminded on Dec 23, 2014 2:04:11 GMT
Don't think I said anyone used WD as a rules source.
The WD is what made me think that maybe we needed to re-read the BRB. The ruling came from the BRB, which we thought was pretty clear.
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Dec 23, 2014 6:33:34 GMT
There's also the practical issue that if you do play it the other way, it's near impossible to accurately calculate percent obstruction from intervening models, so it's ends up being quite subjective. Things like air gap between models, little guys arms/legs sticking out, and whether the firing weapon is on the ground or maybe elevated on a vehicle, make it near impossible to determine 25% with any consistency or accuracy....much more so than just trying to judge whether a guy is 25% behind a wall or not. Opponents can negate your cover saves from intervening models simply buy saying they don't agree that it's 25% obscured. Almost every issue you mention there exists for intervening terrain also.... hills, ruins, etc. Opponents could argue the hill doesn't cover 25% of the target also. And an elevated gun could see over the hill... And the gaps between the models, including between their legs, is specifically stated as counting as providing cover. The concept is to pretend there is a line across the top of the heads of the interveing models, and everything below that is 'behind the wall'. If that wall covers 25%, then it provides a cover save... the same way as a brick wall covering 25% provides a cover save.
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Dec 23, 2014 6:37:04 GMT
"If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit, it receives a 5+ cover save. This is exactly the same as if it was obscured by a piece of terrain." I hear what you are saying. But for it to be "exactly the same" as the terrain, would require being obscured by 25%. OTOH, in my games this pretty much never comes up. Because of my views, and the various discussions here, I am acutely aware of it.... and it just doesn't seem to happen. Now, this is largely because I rarely run gaunts, or things like Trygons.....
|
|
|
Post by roughjnick on Dec 23, 2014 11:44:21 GMT
"If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit, it receives a 5+ cover save. This is exactly the same as if it was obscured by a piece of terrain." I hear what you are saying. But for it to be "exactly the same" as the terrain, would require being obscured by 25%. OTOH, in my games this pretty much never comes up. Because of my views, and the various discussions here, I am acutely aware of it.... and it just doesn't seem to happen. Now, this is largely because I rarely run gaunts, or things like Trygons..... Yeah it's rarely an issue in games I have. I still think that RAW is unclear, despite Core's excellent breakdown above. You can take the rule to mean that you are covered as though you are 25% obscured by terrain. The rule states you receive cover as though you were behind terrain ie. obscured to the extent you receive a save. It's all in how you read it. The thing is I'd feel stupid claiming a save from a single gaunt in front of a trygon so despite ambiguity in the ruleset I've always stuck to the 25% thing as a better interpretation. One thing to consider though Core. Your previous example with the Wraithknight and Russes is a little flawed. We have to remember the rules are designed to replicate the situations as though it's a real battle not models on a table. Just because there's a gap between models doesn't mean the two russes don't give better cover than one. They could be throwing up a dust cloud between them as they roll forward (two would create more dust than one), or moving around in front of the target, or you could just imagine that two leman russes advancing on the shooter are a bigger distraction than one and put them under more pressure on the shot. It can make complete sense that the wraithknight gets a cover save from the two russes when you think of what the rules are trying to represent. One of the previous rule sets even stated that cover was not neccessarily meant to just be something physically in the way or obscuring view. The distraction/threat of a closer target is a valid reason for cover to be granted. TLDR : I agree with how you say it should be played, but because that seems a fair way to play it not because the rules are clear-cut.
|
|
|
Post by luke1705 on Dec 24, 2014 1:22:55 GMT
I also just completely ignore the issue when I play rather than poking the bear, which does affect my army composition sadly. But at least what I like to play doesn't need it. Would be nice to grab a cover save in a pinch but oh well.
I do see both sides of the issue though. Out of curiosity, does anyone know how bigger tournaments play this? When in doubt, I like to use the interpretation that is least advantageous to myself, but also like to be prepared for what will happen in a tournament setting
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Dec 24, 2014 9:59:31 GMT
"If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit, it receives a 5+ cover save. This is exactly the same as if it was obscured by a piece of terrain." I hear what you are saying. But for it to be "exactly the same" as the terrain, would require being obscured by 25%. I think the people that argue the "same as terrain bit" are thinking about the cover save from being IN terrain that doesn't require 25%.
|
|
|
Post by luke1705 on Dec 24, 2014 15:50:22 GMT
I hear what you are saying. But for it to be "exactly the same" as the terrain, would require being obscured by 25%. I think the people that argue the "same as terrain bit" are thinking about the cover save from being IN terrain that doesn't require 25%. The problem is that some terrain requires it. Some doesn't. Who knows which set they're referencing? Not me
|
|
|
Post by slithernaut on Dec 25, 2014 2:25:02 GMT
The brb says that intervening models do not confer cover saves in the same manner as a physical terrain confers cover. The shooting unit is preoccupied with the enemy unit between the shooters and the target. It's not the wall of bodies stopping the bullets/flash lights, the shooters are just being Ladies Parts and are too frightened to shoot the intended target.
|
|