Landing Pad: Cover for units not on the pad?

[scrotatohead]

We all know how epic the landing pad's cover is for models that are on it when the shields are up. However, what if any cover does the pad provide to units under or around it? The actual platform is defined as "Open Terrain" in the book, with a difficult terrain test required to move on/off of it.

But, what if any cover does the pad provide:

1) If your models are under the pad, between the support columns and comes under direct fire,
2) your models under the pad come under barrage/indirect fire, or
3) You have models on the ground on one side of the pad and they get shot at by models on the ground on the opposite side of the pad

My presumption is that unless your model is 25% blocked by either a column or the pad itself, that there is no cover save from direct fire allowed.

I think for purposes of indirect fire models under the pad should be considered out of sight as the shells would hit the pad and energy shields above.

What say you?

[infornography]

I don't think indirect fire would actually have a problem RAW, but I'd have to double check.

[afewveiws]

barrage won't be able to hit them but aside from that they'll be able to be shot direct or indirect. Cv will be a 4+ or 3+ if the standard 25% requirement is met but they could just focus fire those that aren't. Even if they don't, Cv is decided on a model by model bases not by majority. so if the closest models aren't 25% Covered then they won't need to focus fire.

[scrotatohead]

May 23, 2013 8:17:35 GMT infornography said:

I don't think indirect fire would actually have a problem RAW, but I'd have to double check.

It would seem bizarre and counter intuitive if a barrage could pass through a concrete and metal platform to strike a target beneath. But then, that's 40K. It would be nice if the description of each fortification was more than just a quartr of a page, at best.

[afewveiws]

May 23, 2013 14:19:43 GMT scrotatohead said:

May 23, 2013 8:17:35 GMT infornography said:

I don't think indirect fire would actually have a problem RAW, but I'd have to double check.

It would seem bizarre and counter intuitive if a barrage could pass through a concrete and metal platform to strike a target beneath. But then, that's 40K. It would be nice if the description of each fortification was more than just a quartr of a page, at best.

Yeah it's 40k and that means by RAW barrage weapons can't hit a unit if it's under something. the barrage hits whatever level the center hole is on. worst case you take a couple Sv/casualties if the center hole is just off the top level and you have guys 2.5 inches from the hole.

any other blast weapon has to designate a level it's firing at so can't hit the bottom and top, only one or the other. same goes for flamers/templates

[infornography]

afewviews has it right. Barrage weapons would hit the top of the structure, but all blast weapons that are not barrage regardless of how they are fired or targeted, will hit whatever level of the structure you declare unless otherwise specified in their rules. So they would nail the guys below it.

[WestRider]

Unless I'm missing something, by strict RAW, the picking levels bit only applies to Ruins, not other forms of multi-level Terrain.

Also, just for clarity's sake: The Skyshield's special rules do not provide Cover. They provide a 4+ Invulnerable Save. Makes a difference against Barrages, Templates, and the increasing number of Ignores Cover options out there.

That said, yes, Models that are 25% obscured by it would receive a Cover Save, even if they're not on top to get the 4++.

[innocent]

May 24, 2013 2:41:12 GMT WestRider said:

Unless I'm missing something, by strict RAW, the picking levels bit only applies to Ruins, not other forms of multi-level Terrain.

Also, just for clarity's sake: The Skyshield's special rules do not provide Cover. They provide a 4+ Invulnerable Save. Makes a difference against Barrages, Templates, and the increasing number of Ignores Cover options out there.

That said, yes, Models that are 25% obscured by it would receive a Cover Save, even if they're not on top to get the 4++.

I agree with Westrider, the pad is not a bulding, it's "Special", meaning that by RAW a Manticore can very well shoot "under" it. It also means that a Biovore under the Pad can still lob his shells. Unrealistic and counter-intuitive, but that's how i read it. Let me know if you think I am wrong.

Also, given that the Pad is not a building, can Tervigons actually move on top of it? A Tervi base is so large that even if you roll a 6 for your difficult terrain test you won't be able to fit it on the Pad, but given it is not a building I was wondering if the rule that says you have to be able to fit the model on level applies. I say no, but it always makes for a fun debate that one #eyeroll#

[coredump]

Guys, rules for the Skypad are just not well done; or at least not nearly complete.

There are lots of situations that are just not quite covered. We can argue about how they 'should' be, or about how we think they apply.... but the reality is this is mostly conjecture.


Here is one for you. If you have a brood of gaunts 'on' the Pad; meaning 12 are on it, and 8 are off of it. Technically, the rules give the *unit* a 4+ invuln save...even the ones not on the Pad.

[andy089]

wait let me get this straight: If I have a blob of 30 guardsmen and I put only the heavy weapon teams on top of the pad, they will get a 4+ save in every case (4+ cover save or 4++ if the weapon ignores cover)?
(how do you determine if a unit is on of off the pad? I don't think that's covered anywhere and don't start using common sense...)

[angeleania]

The rules in the new book show that you have a choice, Its called Focus fire. If the unit is split (some getting the 4++ cover and some in the open) the firer has the choice. Declare and aim at those in the open and they dont get cover save (but you can only kill those) or aim at the unit and all get the 4++ save but you have the potencial to kill the whole unit. Its the firers choice. If the firer does not declare Focus fire, the defender then by rules can claim the best save for the whole unit.

The book does a fair job of explaining it. (unless i failed to understand then its a poor job)

As for the Platform, on top with the sheild up u get the save it gives. If below and you are 25% obscured u get the 4+ save for Building/ruin, if in the open then no save.

The rules say if you place a building or ruin on a base then that is classcified as area terrain for the foot print of the base the building/ruin is mounted on (limited to 12"x12"). So would we be allowed to mount the sky platform on a base and then claim area terrain ?

[WestRider]

May 26, 2013 9:48:26 GMT angeleania said:

The rules in the new book show that you have a choice, Its called Focus fire. If the unit is split (some getting the 4++ cover and some in the open) the firer has the choice. Declare and aim at those in the open and they dont get cover save (but you can only kill those) or aim at the unit and all get the 4++ save but you have the potencial to kill the whole unit. Its the firers choice. If the firer does not declare Focus fire, the defender then by rules can claim the best save for the whole unit.

The book does a fair job of explaining it. (unless i failed to understand then its a poor job)

That would be accurate if the Skyshield provided a Cover Save. It doesn't. It provides an Invulnerable Save, so none of the Rules for Cover are relevant.

As for the Platform, on top with the sheild up u get the save it gives. If below and you are 25% obscured u get the 4+ save for Building/ruin, if in the open then no save.

That's not what it actually says, tho. As Coredump pointed out, it says that Units on top of a Furled Skyshield get the 4++, not Models on top of it. Even if some Models in the Unit aren't on top, the Unit still is.

The rules say if you place a building or ruin on a base then that is classcified as area terrain for the foot print of the base the building/ruin is mounted on (limited to 12"x12"). So would we be allowed to mount the sky platform on a base and then claim area terrain ?

That only applies to Ruins, not intact Buildings. Those use the Transport Rules with some variations instead. And the Skyshield is neither a Building nor a Ruin.

I do agree that it makes the most sense to use the Ruins rules to work out the multi-level nature of the Skyshield, and since that's completely undefined, it's probably the best way to go.

[coredump]

May 26, 2013 9:48:26 GMT angeleania said:

If the firer does not declare Focus fire, the defender then by rules can claim the best save for the whole unit.

This is not how cover save work. Cover is determined on a *model by model* basis. You may not claim the best cover save for the whole unit. Unless every model is in/behind cover.

What Focus Fire does is let you skip over those models with a cover save to hit the ones out of cover behind them.

[angeleania]

The rule book indicated the firer should declare what he is shooting at. Your right in that you get to skip over models. If the models in cover is closest, and you declare to shoot those that are not in cover, but further away. But if you don't declare then the woulds go against those with cover saves(if closest) until they are all killed, Then you move onto the no cover saves.

A much better explanation than i can do is:-

"You can now elect to target the models in cover or the models in the open. If you chose to "focus fire" on the models in the open, hits and wounds can only be assigned to those models. Thus, they will not get the benefit of the cover save, but you are limited to killing only those models in the open."

When it comes to the sky platform, I have to agree with coredump, this is one of those cases of very poorly written rules.

Going on what you say, its not a building or a ruin, the obscurement rule still applies to the legs. If the legs hide part (25%) of the model What save does it get? 5+ or 4+ or even 3+ like a defense wall? best you can do is discuss with the guy your playing and agree or roll off for it before the game.

Would it be illegal to mount it on a base? Its a fortification with a "footprint"

[scrotatohead]

The rules are very vague to say the least. I appreciate the healthy debate as clearly, any time a model/unit/item is defined by GW as "special", you're going to have some problems with interpretation. I'll take all of your feedback and bring it to my group this week to see how we want to handle the pod locally.