Shoot over friendly / enemy units

[Steelmage99]

If that were the case then everyone would have their models on scenic bases to elevate them,

 

Rulebook, Page 3.

 

and terminators would be able to shoot over marines denying cover saves... sorry but thats not true...

 

Correct, that is not true. A Terminator models head is NOT high enough to clear a Space Marine model. I suggest you actually check out things like this before writing about it.

 

granted yet the rule was poorly worded,

 

No, the rule is very clearly worded. It is poorly worded to do, what you would like it to do.

 

but the only way to shoot over something is to be on an elevated platform.

 

A distinction not present in the rulebook and as shown by both models and illustrations a false conclusion.

 

Remember Los is only used to determine if you can shoot someone, the shots do not come from the models head.

 

Actually to all intent and purpose the shooting from a non-vehicle model does indeed come from their eyes. Are you trying to argue logic/realism in our Space elf, bloodthirsty mushrooms, genetic super monks-game? :D

 

If there is any form of obstructions (please note gaps in a unit DO count as an obstructions, even if the whole of the model can be seen) then there is a cover save, the only exceptions is when in contact with a barrier, within 2" of the edge of terrain and shooting out or shooting through your own unit. Please see rules on P.22 BBB

 

And of course the exception that I have stated earlier, namely the third bulletpoint, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten in your list of exceptions.

 

And we all know that the gaps count. The kicker when it comes to gaps is this .

[Mal]

If that were the case then everyone would have their models on scenic bases to elevate them,

 

Rulebook, Page 3.

 

A termi base is the same size as a termi base, just because the termi is standing on something doesn't change the base size, this rule doesn't apply to this problem as the original base is still being used.

 

and terminators would be able to shoot over marines denying cover saves... sorry but thats not true...

 

Correct, that is not true. A Terminator models head is NOT high enough to clear a Space Marine model. I suggest you actually check out things like this before writing about it.

 

[]bReally, combar the eye height to the on the shoulder of a space marine, I get a clear view from mine, but what you are actually arguing here is that all shots come from the eyes.... no where in the rules does it say that the shot is taken from the eye, only that LOS is drawn from the eye, and I state again, LOS is only used to determine if they can shoot, not where they shoot from[/b]

 

granted yet the rule was poorly worded,

 

No, the rule is very clearly worded. It is poorly worded to do, what you would like it to do.

 

The rule is clearly worded then? well if thats the case a marine standing behind a marine can fire over him.... after all all he has to do is lift his arm... This is what I mean by poorly worded, they do not define what they mean by firing over.

 

but the only way to shoot over something is to be on an elevated platform.

 

A distinction not present in the rulebook and as shown by both models and illustrations a false conclusion.

 

I agree its not defined, which points me back to my statement that the rule is poorly worded.

 

Remember Los is only used to determine if you can shoot someone, the shots do not come from the models head.

 

Actually to all intent and purpose the shooting from a non-vehicle model does indeed come from their eyes. Are you trying to argue logic/realism in our Space elf, bloodthirsty mushrooms, genetic super monks-game? ;)

 

Realism doesn't belong, but logic does, logic is not drfined by reality, it is defined by the human mind.... and unless your saying your not human, you cannot escape the basic tennants of logic

 

If there is any form of obstructions (please note gaps in a unit DO count as an obstructions, even if the whole of the model can be seen) then there is a cover save, the only exceptions is when in contact with a barrier, within 2" of the edge of terrain and shooting out or shooting through your own unit. Please see rules on P.22 BBB

 

And of course the exception that I have stated earlier, namely the third bulletpoint, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten in your list of exceptions.

 

Actually I didn;t miss that point, incase you hadn't noticed its the one we are discussing, and to be honest I didn;t think you required the reminder of what we are talking about.. I'll remember that one for future

 

And we all know that the gaps count. The kicker when it comes to gaps is this .

 

Yes its a discussion about this topic on another forum... I fail to see how that makes it a 'kicker'.

 

Something tells me you are set in your reading of the rule... as I am in my own reading. I think it would be best here if we just agree to disagree.

[Oldenhaller]

Righto;

 

A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit...as its target. In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least oine model in the target unit.

 

Nice easy start. Pick your target based upon LoS. Now we need to know how LoS works;

 

Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit. (for 'body' we mean it's torso head legs and arms).

 

So that tells us what line of sight is, pretty simple. Nothing about shooting from guns or how logic/real world physics interacts with imobile plasic/lead minatures. So what if there's an issue with something between my minature and its target

 

When any part of the target model's body (as defined on pg.16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer the target model is in cover.

 

Instead of using the phrse 'Line of Site', GW have opted for the iffy phrase of 'Point of View'...*sigh*. this is mercifully clarified later in the same section;

 

Firers may...shoot over interviening terrain if they are tall enough or high up enough so that their line of site is completely clear

 

So that covers cover. It includes the model's height and as the LoS rules specify how this is worked out, there is no issue here. LoS governs what can be shot by infantry/beast/jump infantry etc, only vehicles draw LoS from their weapons. Onto units between the target and the firer;

 

If a model is partially hidden from a firer's view

again with the piss poor nomenclature

by other models, it recieves a 4+ cover save in the same way as if it were behind terrain

 

So while as badly worded as ever (we can infer that view means point of view and thus LoS from the terrain rules) so long as the model can be seen then there is no cover save from another unit. This is then quantified further by the adendum;

 

If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain...or through the gaps between an interviening unit, the target is in cover...Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the area terrain or unit rather than through it.

 

Pretty simple, if you shoot through a gap they get a cover save, if you'd see over the gap then you don't. The shots are defines as the shooting which takes place using the rules defined for LoS rather than from where the gun is held, the base size of the model or how one fires over. Firing over is defined by the LoS rules - if the line of sight passes over the terrain/unit/etc then so does the shot.

 

The kicker reffered to is what happens when there is either area terrain or unit which contain models of varied heights. Does the line between these models go from the heads of the tallest members of the unit/peaks of the tallest parts of the terrain. In addition to that I'd also question what would happen if a unit was out of coherency. If the unit is out of coherency would this mean that the line between them allowed these cover saves?

 

~O

[Oldenhaller]

Pearoast

[Democratus]

Agreed, though I don't think this situation would be encountered too often.

 

I've seen whole armies built on this principle, in particular IG and Tau. Make one unit entirely of kneeling models and the second unit entiryly of standing models. Standing unit forms a rank behind the kneeling unit and - presto! - cover save for the rear unit.

[Mordekiem]

I'd say that if the POV from the firers head presents a clear shot over any models then you are fine. The chances of this happening are pretty low though. And if you are in an iffy spot and not sure then use the 5+ save.

[maniclurker]

Agreed, though I don't think this situation would be encountered too often.

 

I've seen whole armies built on this principle, in particular IG and Tau. Make one unit entirely of kneeling models and the second unit entiryly of standing models. Standing unit forms a rank behind the kneeling unit and - presto! - cover save for the rear unit.

How many of these 'whole armies' have you seen? Just how many people could have gone out and either bought or converted entire armies to take advantage of this rule set since the new rulebook came out? Not many, I'd say. I haven't seen this kind of crap in my gaming group yet.

 

You know what I've seen more than this classic example of people being jack-asses about modelling... people not playing like asses, and instead just sticking with actually cover, or saying that intervening models are intervening models.

 

I agree with Oldenhaller on this, if you can see over the unit, then you can see over it. However, it is a rare situation where 1 unit of infantry standing in front of another unit of infantry on the same level of terrain doesn't provide cover to another unit of infantry on the same level. I haven't really seen this occur too often since the new rules came out, and when it did, it didn't matter.

[Steelmage99]

Rulebook, Page 3.

 

A termi base is the same size as a termi base, just because the termi is standing on something doesn't change the base size, this rule doesn't apply to this problem as the original base is still being used.

 

But Page 3 doesn't just talk about size.

 

and terminators would be able to shoot over marines denying cover saves... sorry but thats not true...

 

Correct, that is not true. A Terminator models head is NOT high enough to clear a Space Marine model. I suggest you actually check out things like this before writing about it.

 

Really, combar the eye height to the on the shoulder of a space marine, I get a clear view from mine, but what you are actually arguing here is that all shots come from the eyes.... no where in the rules does it say that the shot is taken from the eye, only that LOS is drawn from the eye, and I state again, LOS is only used to determine if they can shoot, not where they shoot from

What?

 

http://www.pbase.com/crusader40k/image/107488172.jpg

 

I fail to see how the Terminator gets an unobstructed view of the Ork.

 

You can state and restate that LOS is only used in determining if they can shoot, it doesn't make it any more right. LOS is also used to determine if any coversaves apply. So, in effect, non-vehicle models are indeed shooting "from the eyes".

 

 

The rule is clearly worded then? well if thats the case a marine standing behind a marine can fire over him.... after all all he has to do is lift his arm... This is what I mean by poorly worded, they do not define what they mean by firing over.

 

That would be entirely true if the weapons was used to draw LOS, but as the eyes of the model is used in determining the presence of coversaves, the placement of the weapon is irrelevant.

 

As a funny aside, you have really inspired me to make a marine holding his bolter over his head shooting slightly downwards. Like the "Plasmaweapons - totally worth it" picture. :devil:

 

 

but the only way to shoot over something is to be on an elevated platform.

 

A distinction not present in the rulebook and as shown by both models and illustrations a false conclusion.

 

I agree its not defined, which points me back to my statement that the rule is poorly worded.

 

That is called circular argumentation. Just because you IMO don't understand the rule, doesn't make it poorly worded.

 

 

*talk about logic*

 

Logic would be following the rules.

 

 

Actually I didn;t miss that point, incase you hadn't noticed its the one we are discussing, and to be honest I didn;t think you required the reminder of what we are talking about.. I'll remember that one for future

 

So you point is that you don't have to address the issue we are actually talking about.....because we are talking about it?

 

Seems a bit odd to me.

 

 

Yes its a discussion about this topic on another forum... I fail to see how that makes it a 'kicker'.

 

I am sorry if I was vague. I didn't mean "kicker" is in Poker (secondary card used to determine the outcome of a hand). I meant "kicker" as a odd facet of this very rule.

[maniclurker]

"Plasmaweapons - totally worth it" picture. :P

I want to see this picture...

[Steelmage99]

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7906/plasmaweaponszl6.jpg

[maniclurker]

;) PALASMA :)

 

That's still funny, though. Thank you.