GunnarRedsun Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Alright, during a recent game one of my land raiders was hidden behind a unit of terminators. there was an enemy dreadnought shooting at it, and from the view point of the dreadnought, the terminators blocked over half (not by much, but still over half) of the land raider. it was ruled that it was obscured, and i could ignore the penetrating hit on a 5+. now this wasn't really a game deciding descision, but its something i would like to know what other people think. now the only reason i'm bring it up is because the terminators actually blocked over half the land raider, which is what started the debate (which thankfully stayed freindly). now i understand with other infantry they wouldn't, but these did. now i'd heard that they didn't, but some people believe otherwise, and i found no clear ruling in the rule book (which says on page 62 of the little one: "At least 50% of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover") and i can't find anything else. now i'm not trying to cheat anyone or screw em, so i would really like to know how this plays out, as it split our little group almost down the middle. anyways, thanks guys and cheers oh and by the way i spent over an hour searching, so eithor i really fail or...i really fail at searching :) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Dammit Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Its not realy a SW question and i'm moving it to the rules section where more people can help. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1913275 Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 If 50% or more was covered, it should have gotten a cover save. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1913279 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souchan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 If 50% or more was covered, it should have gotten a cover save. That's true and if models gave it, it should have been better than 5+ too, cover saves from shooting through units has a set value. Now had you and your opponent disagreed or been unsure if it was 50% or maybe less, then it would have been a 5+ :) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1913300 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 yeah - when the coverage / obscured% is not OBVIOUSLY over 50%, then drop the cover save by 1 (like this 4+ to 5+). if it's far more than 50%, keep the obscured bonus as written. infantry can certainly grant obscured to a vehicle - you just need the right size and number of them positioned appropriately. I think you played it right, GunnarRedSon Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1913321 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmage99 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I concur. It was played right. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1913339 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 You boned yourself. 50% covered = 4+ save matey. Also, its a largely missed rule - its not 50% of the vehicle, its 50% of the vehicle facing the firer; a tad easier to do than the former. If the termies are physically big enough to block- then all is good in the world. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1914527 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 yes - 50% from the vantage point of the firing models - but when in doubt, save -1. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1914597 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevianID Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I have an addon question... what armor facing to turrets count as? IE, a predator is behind a wall, granting exactly 50% cover to the 'rhino' portion of the predator, but the predator has that turret on top. Is the predator still 50% obscured, or is the turret part of the vehicles front? If yes, the turret counts as hull, then if the turret is facing backwards (away from the enemy shooting at the pred), does the back part of the turret count as back armor? Thus since it is not part of the side of interest (the front of the predator) now the predator has >50% obscurity? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1917213 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souchan Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 The turret has no bearing on facing, determine sides as usual. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1917296 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevianID Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 So big ol' turrets cant be shot at all? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1917321 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souchan Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 So big ol' turrets cant be shot at all? Not what I said, turrets are used for determing LOS, but have no bearing on the position of the vehicles facing, which is determined as usual. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1917378 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmage99 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Sure they can. You just don't use them to determine facing as such. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1917380 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevianID Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Ah... so if the turret is rotated, you just redraw the corners thus making the back of a 180 degree rotated turret the front when shooting! Then, if he rotates the turret to a different position, simply redraw the corners! Would have helped the past game... stupid hull down lol... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1917459 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmage99 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 What? Maybe I misunderstand you. To all intent and purpose the position of a given turret has zero relevance when it comes to determining facing. It doesn't matter which way a turret is pointing. If a Leman Russ has the front facing towards me, that is the facing I will be shooting at. The turret might be pointing directly away from me, presenting its "rear", and might even be the only part of the tank I can see. It doesn't matter. I still shoot at the front armour value. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1917476 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I'm not sure what you're saying there DevianD ;). [edit] OK Steelmage has already answered. Turrets are ignored for determing AV vehicle facing values. But they are included for LOS purposes. [/edit] Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1917482 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevianID Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 The reason I asked was, assume for instance the following LOS situation: Now, if you can not see the side of the vehicle that you are on you give the enemy a 3+ cover save. So... if you are in the front arc but you can only see the side of the vehicle thanks to a wall obscuring the front for example, the vehicle automaticly gets a 3+save for cover. But if the turret sticks up above the interveining wall, then part of the turret counts as part of the front of the vehicle, thus you do not give the enemy the 3+ cover save because part of the front is visible. Also, you can not rotate the turret so that the back of the turret is the only part of the turret visible, meaning the vehicle still gets a 3+ save because none of the 'front' part of the turret is visible. Also, assume you are so tall that a firing model is literally looking down on the target vehicle. The vertical sides of the vehicle are not visible, only the vehicles roof. In this situation, you would be able to see the roof part of the front, side, and rear, thus the vehicle would not get a +3 cover save because the part of the roof can count as part of the side you are shooting at. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1917612 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souchan Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 The reason I asked was, assume for instance the following LOS situation: 1.Now, if you can not see the side of the vehicle that you are on you give the enemy a 3+ cover save. So... if you are in the front arc but you can only see the side of the vehicle thanks to a wall obscuring the front for example, the vehicle automaticly gets a 3+save for cover. 2.But if the turret sticks up above the interveining wall, then part of the turret counts as part of the front of the vehicle, thus you do not give the enemy the 3+ cover save because part of the front is visible. Also, you can not rotate the turret so that the back of the turret is the only part of the turret visible, meaning the vehicle still gets a 3+ save because none of the 'front' part of the turret is visible. 3.Also, assume you are so tall that a firing model is literally looking down on the target vehicle. The vertical sides of the vehicle are not visible, only the vehicles roof. In this situation, you would be able to see the roof part of the front, side, and rear, thus the vehicle would not get a +3 cover save because the part of the roof can count as part of the side you are shooting at. Added numerals to clarify what I'm answering 1. True, but you get to use the AV of the side you can see 2.Yes to the first part, to the second part, the back of the turret would still count as part of the front armour if it falls within the front part of the X (p60, the image).if the entire turret falls in the back part of the X(I think a razorbacks would always fall in the back X, so if only visible, the rear armour would get shot, but with 3+ cover save. (do note all these questions are not 100% spelled out, so we have to work with what they do say) 3.Except for barrage weapons there is no top armour. Divide it into it's X, determine which part of the X the firer is shooting from and see if it can see that part of the roof. Understanding how to use the X is essential to all these questions. My understanding of facings. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1917643 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmage99 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Agree with Souchan. Regarding 2. (to DevianID) Stop muddying the waters already. The position of the turret has ZERO relevance when determining facing! Please stop refering to it at all. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1917865 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevianID Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Regarding 2. (to DevianID)Stop muddying the waters already. The position of the turret has ZERO relevance when determining facing! Please stop refering to it at all. I am referring to it because that is what happened to me... so clearly to some people out there the position of the turret does have some relevance--which I was trying to see if they were correct or not, hence why I asked the question. I didnt realize I was not allow to refer to the essential (and most confusing) part of the vehicle in my question, but now I know I guess. For example, what souchan said about the razorback's turret is VERY good info to have, and in fact has a HUGE relevance when determining what facing you can see, and whether the enemy gets a cover save! AKA, think about this. If you put a rhino directly in front of a razorback's front (so the front hull plate is 100% obscured) , and the enemy is in the razorbacks front, then even though the enemy can see the razorback's turret, the razorback gets a 3+ cover save automaticly because none of the turret would count as 'front' armor, despite the turret facing front, and yet the razorback would still have clear LOS. Now, this is not possible with a predator, but I was told it was due to the orientation of the turret facing, and thus the enemy was getting a better cover save then they should have with their heavy tank--and playing against 3 heavy tanks each with a 3+ cover save was kinda silly to fight, which is why I brought it to the rules forum to see if that was done incorrectly. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1918136 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I hope I am understanding your points correctly, but as I see it from your examples: If you put a rhino directly in front of a razorback's front (so the front hull plate is 100% obscured) , and the enemy is in the razorbacks front, then even though the enemy can see the razorback's turret, the razorback gets a 3+ cover save automaticly because none of the turret would count as 'front' armor, despite the turret facing front, and yet the razorback would still have clear LOS. The save has nothing to do with what part of the turret is facing, but about the proportion of the facing vehicle's armour that is obscured. If the vehicle has more than 50% covered (as in the above example) then it gets it's save – and vehicle's cover save value is always determined what the the vehicle is obscured by, not by armour facing values. The turret is merely used to consider LOS ie being able to see something to shoot at, and plays no part in cover save value determination. Now, this is not possible with a predator, but I was told it was due to the orientation of the turret facing, and thus the enemy was getting a better cover save. You were told wrong. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1918148 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevianID Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 and vehicle's cover save value is always determined what the the vehicle is obscured by, not by armour facing values. Actually, there is a little section where if you can not see any part of the vehicles facing you are in, but can see another part of the vehicle, then the vehicle automaticly gets a 3+ cover save. So if you are hiding behind a bush, normally cover save 6+, but the bush obscures the entire facing the enemy is in, then you turn that 6+ into a 3+... why the rule was made so hard to find, I dont know. [a turret] plays no part in cover save value determination A turret may play a huge part in cover save determination in the above example of the vehicle hiding behind the bush, if the turret is in the appropriate side, thus meaning you can see part of the facing you are in and do not give the 3+ save to the enemy, which is basicly what happened in my game. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1918182 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Actually, there is a little section where if you can not see any part of the vehicles facing you are in, but can see another part of the vehicle, then the vehicle automaticly gets a 3+ cover save..... A turret may play a huge part in cover save determination in the above example of the vehicle hiding behind the bush, if the turret is in the appropriate side, thus meaning you can see part of the facing you are in and do not give the 3+ save to the enemy, which is basicly what happened in my game. Well it actually says "can see another facingof the target vehicle – not "part". I presume this to mean that the closest face presented to the firer is totally obscured due to cover, but that another facing is still visible, but at an extreme angle, thus the 3+ cover save is granted. And that 3+ is granted to whatever 'extreme' angled face can be seen regardless of it's actual AV value. I see now what you are getting at DevianID ;). But reading that rule, I'm still not convinced that turret's relative position has anything to do with it. In your example above let's assume the facing side [and turret] was 100% totally obscured by the bush, but you could just glimpse a bit of either front or rear armour – then it'd get the 3+ save due to the extreme angle of the shot onto that bit of exposed plate. If the bush 100% obscured the closest facing side, and no other face was glimpsed, [but turret was visible] then the vehicle would just get the 5+ bush cover save. In both cases, the turret isn't considered a 'face' for cover purposes – only other facing sections of the hull. In other words it doesn't matter what part of the turret you can see. Edit: added orange bits for clarity Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1918421 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Race Bannon Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I agree with Isiah as it's a great answer to the Occam's Razor concerning turrets. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1918474 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevianID Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 If the bush 100% obscured the closest facing side, and no other face was glimpsed, then the vehicle would just get the 5+ bush cover save If you cant see any facing, surely you cant shoot at all, right? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/162776-need-some-help/#findComment-1918509 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.