Shooting through area terrain at vechicles

[Ramora]

So down at my lgs this last weekend I played a game for the first time in a few months and my opponent shot at one of my rhinos Through a piece of area terrain, trees to be exact. He was on one side of the terrain I was on the other neither of us was in it. I assumed that I would get a 4+ save against what ever damaged was inflicted but he said no because of TLOS 50% of the vechicle wasn't obscured meaning that because there was only two trees on the area terrain he could see my whole rhino. I didn't wanna agrue the point at that time so after the game I asked a couple other guys that I trust at the store and they argeed with the other guy. They and he said that if it were troops then yes they would be obscured but since it's a vechicle then no. I wasn't conviced cause that just sounded stupid. So I flipped through my rule book and this is what I came up with:

 

What I am gunna assume they were talking about and where they got there definition of the rule from is where it says "vechicles are not obscured simply for being in area terrain" BRB p. 62 This is only part of the rules for being obscured and what I believe this means is that unlike non vechicle models which need to only be partially in area terrain to gain cover. If you look at the rule on firing through area terrain on p. 22 of the BRB is exactly the scenario with the shooting between two trees. In this portion of the BRB it just talks about what is cover and what grants cover to models in general, not specifically vechicle or non vechicle models.

 

So am I still wrong to assume that I should have gotten a cover save?

 

Cheers,

 

Ramo

[Seahawk]

Yes, you are wrong. On page 62 it is explained thoroughly and there are pictures to show the reader how cover works for vehicles. Interestingly, the same situation happened Saturday with my friend who hadn't played in a few months; had to point out the same stuff there too. Here's the relevant quote:

 

"At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted 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."

 

If there were enough trees to provide said cover then you're good, otherwise, no cover save. The same goes for monstrous creatures in 5th edition.

[Ramora]

Well that's pretty stupid. I think the rule makes more since after you the monstrous creature bit though. So what are the non vehichle models getting cover saves from I can see them just fine on a peice of area terrain with only two trees on it. The BRB explaination of why models get cover pretty much goes against their big thing about TLOS. I never liked it anyways and this is just one more thing to add to why I don't like it. If a peice of area terrain is a forest or jungle which confers a 4+ cover save to non vehicle models then why if a vehicle model is on the opposite side of a JUNGLE would it not be obscured. Now I'm just ranting. I guess I really don't care but it just seems silly that it works in two very different ways. Maybe I'll just make my vehicles as close to 2 dimensional as possible so they can hide behind a single tree. Anyways thanks for clearing that up for me. I'll just have to start bringing a crap ton of mini trees with me when I go play.

 

Cheers,

 

Ramo

[Frosty the Pyro]

It makes perfect sense.

 

Its not little plastic men that are fighting, its harded vetrens, the little plastic men just represent them. If someone starts shooting at me and I am in the forest, I will duck behind the trees, because I am a person and suprisingly mobile. A vehicle cant do that, as they tend to be BIGER than the trees. A vehicle cant bend and crouch and the such to take maximum advantage of cover the way a person can. Thus they need to be 50% obscured, cus its realy hard for a tank to hide. A man on the other hand can duck, or press up against scenery or whatever, their rules are generous. Vehicles arnt that agile, their rules are less generous. Monsterous creatures would honestly be between the two, but they still use the vehicle rules (likely for simplicity sake).

 

 

As a case experiment, Pick a spot and stand there, do not move, have a freind go hide in the woods, and see if you can spot them, then have someone park a truck in those same woods, and see if you can spot it. Guess which one your going to see?

[Ramora]

It makes perfect sense.

 

Its not little plastic men that are fighting, its harded vetrens, the little plastic men just represent them. If someone starts shooting at me and I am in the forest, I will duck behind the trees, because I am a person and suprisingly mobile. A vehicle cant do that, as they tend to be BIGER than the trees. A vehicle cant bend and crouch and the such to take maximum advantage of cover the way a person can. Thus they need to be 50% obscured, cus its realy hard for a tank to hide. A man on the other hand can duck, or press up against scenery or whatever, their rules are generous. Vehicles arnt that agile, their rules are less generous. Monsterous creatures would honestly be between the two, but they still use the vehicle rules (likely for simplicity sake).

 

 

As a case experiment, Pick a spot and stand there, do not move, have a freind go hide in the woods, and see if you can spot them, then have someone park a truck in those same woods, and see if you can spot it. Guess which one your going to see?

 

 

well for one 10 guys can't hide behind 2 trees and for two I bet you wouldn't see very much of the truck if there were enough trees for everyone to duck behind and remain in unit coherancy ;) .

[Seahawk]

Yes, the key is to bring and stack as many trees on the forest template as you possibly can. I do it all the time in 5th edition, and my vehicles have gained plenty of cover saves.

[Kephri]

I recently went over the vehicle rules (and took notes to send to my friends so we were all on the same page).

 

What do you guys think of a vehicle parked behind a fence?

 

From what I can tell, a vehicle gains a cover save based on what is providing cover, so if it was completely "obscured" by a "light fence" that only gave troops 6+ or 5+ save, it should get a 6+/5+ save, right? (I use "quotes" for the obscured, since you can clearly see through the fence, but it is in fact cover for troops and if large enough you must shoot through it to get to the vehicle)

[Seahawk]

It would not provide cover. The key word is bolded here:

 

At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted needs to be hidden by intervening terrain

It needs to be completely out of LOS to start counting as cover. Hence, once at least 50% of a vehicle is completely out of LOS from the firer, a cover save is granted. A chain-link fence will not provide any help against being shot, as you can see right through no problem. Again, go with Pyro's example: park a vehicle behind a fence, imagine it's three times the size, and see if you can see it without a problem.

 

With infantry it's more relaxed, with the fluid nature of the body being taken into account.

[ShinyRhino]

Odd. Our club/shop has always run area terrain as "fully filled" with trees. We put down a felt pad for a forest, anchor it with four trees, and call it a forest. Trying to pack those felt pads with a whole pile of plastic hobby trees is just a pain, especially when you have models sitting in there. We find it easier to move the four trees out of the way than a whole pile of them.

 

Of course, our solution probably falls under the House Rules section.

[Seahawk]

It does. Think of it as another attempt by GW to force you to buy more terrain so ensure you get cover, giving them more moneys, though it's quite easy to get cheaper stuff from elsewhere.

[IronWinds]

Ok so under 4th I could count a giant piece of green terrain with a couple trees as a forest... yeah! imagination.

 

Now a 10 man squad can hide behind a couple trees, but my tank can't, because it is not a forest, it is two trees. Sorry no imagination.

 

So to get my vehicle the proper cover I have to have a lot of trees.... but if I cover the felt pad with trees I can't fit 10 marines in there.... talk about catch 22 from h_ll.

[Muctar]

Seahawk and the rest are right. For vehicles it's always 50% of the facing to determine cover. Meant to streamline the game in vehicle terms.

 

Solution: dollar stores. 6"x6" trays of jungle grass 3 for 1$ usually. Jam that between your tress and it'll give your vehicles lots of cover, as well as being area terrain

[gdeathlegion]

I always understood that if a vehicle is beyond a forest, ie: between two elements of area terrain, it counts as being obscured by the forest. even though it may be completely visible to the firer (this of course due to the issues of modeling an entire forest onto one piece of terrain, not to mention fitting models on it.) I know this is covered in the cover rules.

 

Does anyone agree or is it strictly 50 percent obscurity to receive cover?

 

And as a side note I always try to get my rhinos a 3+ cover save by using that wonderful facing rule that is clearly in the BRB, yet not understood or read by many players.

[Isiah]

I always understood that if a vehicle is beyond a forest, ie: between two elements of area terrain, it counts as being obscured by the forest. even though it may be completely visible to the firer (this of course due to the issues of modeling an entire forest onto one piece of terrain, not to mention fitting models on it.) I know this is covered in the cover rules.

You are perfectly correct but this doesn't apply to vehicles unfortunately - they use the Obscured targets rule found on p62.

 

In this situation [oddly] TLOS takes over, so what was potentially a nice squad/unit cover save conferring dense forest area terrain item suddenly reverts to the two or three straggly tree models used on the table to actually present the physical terrain.

 

Maybe sort this kind of stuff out before any game starts ie, assign what area terrain can give cover saves to vehicles.

 

Cheers

I

[Warp Angel]

Never forget that the rule book tells you to discuss what terrain is and actually does before the game starts.

 

If you agree that a piece of felt with a tree on it represents 6" tall, ultradense forest, than that's what it is. If you don't discuss terrain, then you are stuck with the RAW.

[Ming]

I agree with Warpangel. The BRB gives you a standard rule, that should be followed...UNLESS...you (as we do) agree at deployment what the area terrain means for cover. I have forest around my house. In some places I can see for over a hundred yards, into the fields beyond. In other places, you cannot see 5 feet. It is important (for scenario purposes or otherwise) to decide/agree what kind of terrain you have.

 

In games past I'd get pissed off when an opponent could barely see a glimmer of blue hull through a distant doorway or window (no matter how small) and pop my speeder or predator with a lascannon or worse. Sure, I'd get a 4+ cover save, big deal. I tended to face my vehilces in the direction of travel...so side armor shots happened. Now, unless we clarify terrain issues, I have to face the vehicle at the opposing weapons that might pop them...