Tank and it's sponson weapons

[DantonTH]

Situation is next:

 

We have table that is clean with no terrain. My land raider is on the middle of it, with lascannon spons. My opponent has squad (or some smaller tank) next to it. Can this squad get cover save because lascannons of my land raider can see only 20% per cannon of the unit from both sides. So they are so close to it that becomes question can tank's own hull give cover save to enemy unit? In the rulebook there is section "intervening models", that says; "If the target is partially hidden from the firer's view by other models..."

 

So what you think about this problem?

[Frosty the Pyro]

A unit never provides cover to itself, so I would let the shots be fired with no cover.

 

Page to reference is pg 22 BRB, Own unit (under the exeptions heading)

[glayvin34]

Yeah, no cover save. If the sponsons can point at any element of the opposing unit in your example, then it gets to fire with no intervening models. However, if the enemy unit is to the left or right of the LR, so that one sponson can't even point at it, then it can't fire at all.

[Isiah]

If the sponsons can point at any element of the opposing unit in your example, then it gets to fire with no intervening models. However, if the enemy unit is to the left or right of the LR, so that one sponson can't even point at it, then it can't fire at all.

 

That could be misleading. Just to clarify that – only the vehicle's weapon that can't draw LOS is unable to fire. If the others can get LOS, they can fire.

[SeattleDV8]

A unit never provides cover to itself, so I would let the shots be fired with no cover.

 

Page to reference is pg 22 BRB, Own unit (under the exeptions heading)

 

Not quite ,BRB pg 64 "Like other units, vehicles in squadrons can see and shoot though members of their own unit, just as if they were not there."

The rule on pg. 22 is also referring to other members of the unit.

As it states in the BRB FAQ "...If the structure the gun is

pintle-mounted on is obviously capable of

rotating 360º, like in the case of a Rhino’s cupola,

then it should be treated as having a 360º arc of

fire. However, if you mount the same storm

bolter on a Razorback, even though it still can

rotate 360º, it won’t obviously be able to fire

through the Razorback’s main turret, and so it

will have a ‘blind spot’."

 

 

Vehicles can and do give cover from themselves just by blocking their own LOS.

[Frosty the Pyro]

A unit never provides cover to itself, so I would let the shots be fired with no cover.

 

Page to reference is pg 22 BRB, Own unit (under the exeptions heading)

 

Not quite ,BRB pg 64 "Like other units, vehicles in squadrons can see and shoot though members of their own unit, just as if they were not there."

The rule on pg. 22 is also referring to other members of the unit.

As it states in the BRB FAQ "...If the structure the gun is

pintle-mounted on is obviously capable of

rotating 360º, like in the case of a Rhino’s cupola,

then it should be treated as having a 360º arc of

fire. However, if you mount the same storm

bolter on a Razorback, even though it still can

rotate 360º, it won’t obviously be able to fire

through the Razorback’s main turret, and so it

will have a ‘blind spot’."

 

 

Vehicles can and do give cover from themselves just by blocking their own LOS.

 

The blind spot inferes not being able to draw LOS at all. My right lascannon cannot fire into my left arch. This has no impact on cover, and has more relation to something being out of range, if even one model of an enemy unit is in range you may fire at and wound the entire unit.

[SeattleDV8]

If any part of the unit is obscured from the firing weapon you will get cover.

For example we have a Predator with an AC turret and Hvy Bolter sponsons.

In front of it is a unit of 10 marines in a line from left to right.

The turret can see all 10.

The right and left sponsons have 4 models in their Arc of Fire.

BRB pg. 58 tells us that each gun is treated as a seperate model for working out cover for a unit

If you fired the turret only there would be no cover as all 10 model are seen.

If you fired the right sponson the unit would receive a cover save as 6 models (over 50%) are obscured.

The same for the Left sponson.

So if you fired one or both the sponson with the turret the unit would get a cover save even though completely in the open.

LOS determines cover.

[nighthawks]

the rules regarding the LOS dead spot say nothing of cover. - BRB FAQ is pretty clear on the rest of the LOS capabilities. BRB P.59 says that weapons cannot shoot through vehicles to which they are mounted, based on the "shape and position of the sponson's mounting."

 

But cover cannot be granted by the vehicle itself as it would contradict the rules for cover.

to quote P.58, Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight: "If the target unit happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicles weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit."

 

so lets check that out: P.16, Which Models Can Fire? "all models in the firing unit that have [LOS] to at least one model in the target unit." the AC/HB predator example meets this criteria with all 3 of its weapons. next, P.22 Cover Saves (cont'd), Exceptions: "Own unit." The tank hull is part of it's own unit, particularly when treating all of its weapons "exactly" as we would treat separate firing models in a "normal" (i.e. infantry, from P.4) unit. Continuing on P.22, Units Partially in Cover: "completely out of sight" no, the turret can see them all, so none are out of sight to "the unit." "half or more... in cover" no, as stated, the firing unit itself does not grant cover to the target. "if multiple models are shooting.. how many models are in cover from the [POV] of the majority of firing models..." This might get hairy but for the use of the word "cover" in the last quote - the models must be IN COVER from the POV of the firers, not simply visible / not visible.

 

as no model is behind intervening terrain or models, are all in LOS and range to at least one firing "model" of the unit (turret), and no majority of the target models are behind "cover" from the POV of the majority of the firers, the target unit is not "in cover."

 

Granted, the majority is outside of LOS for each of 2/3 of the firing weapons, this does not count as cover per the definitions - particularly as this is a non-overlapping portion of the whole, so really 80% are in view, 20% are totally out of LOS to the majority of the firing weapons, but the minority weapon has 100% LOS so no model in the unit is "completely" out of sight.

 

So I just don't see the argument that the tank provides cover from itself holding any water. aside from going against the basic tenets of not granting cover with the firing unit itself, it seems an over-read interpretation of the firing arc rules, which tell us how to determine which vehicle mounted weapons can be brought to bear upon a particular target given the facing of the vehicle and its weapon mountings. nothing more.

[SeattleDV8]

the rules regarding the LOS dead spot say nothing of cover. - BRB FAQ is pretty clear on the rest of the LOS capabilities. BRB P.59 says that weapons cannot shoot through vehicles to which they are mounted, based on the "shape and position of the sponson's mounting."

They also used the term 'blindspot' to show we cannot see or shoot though the vehicle.

 

But cover cannot be granted by the vehicle itself as it would contradict the rules for cover.

to quote P.58, Vehicle Weapons & Line of Sight: "If the target unit happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicles weapons, then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a separate firing model in a normal unit."

 

so lets check that out: P.16, Which Models Can Fire? "all models in the firing unit that have [LOS] to at least one model in the target unit." the AC/HB predator example meets this criteria with all 3 of its weapons.

Agreed, all may fire.

next, P.22 Cover Saves (cont'd), Exceptions: "Own unit." The tank hull is part of it's own unit, particularly when treating all of its weapons "exactly" as we would treat separate firing models in a "normal" (i.e. infantry, from P.4) unit.

 

Read it closer, pg. 22 "in the same way they can trace LOS though members of their own squad......can shoot (..) though members of their own squad.'

As we would both agree that you may not draw LOS or shoot though a vehicle unless it is part of a squadron.

Continuing on P.22, Units Partially in Cover: "completely out of sight" no, the turret can see them all, so none are out of sight to "the unit." "half or more... in cover" no, as stated, the firing unit itself does not grant cover to the target. "if multiple models are shooting.. how many models are in cover from the [POV] of the majority of firing models..." This might get hairy but for the use of the word "cover" in the last quote - the models must be IN COVER from the POV of the firers, not simply visible / not visible.

The entire sentence "Models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover for this purpose."

The LOS is the way we decide what is in cover.

 

as no model is behind intervening terrain or models, are all in LOS and range to at least one firing "model" of the unit (turret), and no majority of the target models are behind "cover" from the POV of the majority of the firers, the target unit is not "in cover."

So if one member of a squad of three could see the entire unit being shot at and the other two could only see under 50% you would deny the unit cover?

Each gun on a vehicle has to determine what they can see seperately just as the squad does.

Granted, the majority is outside of LOS for each of 2/3 of the firing weapons, this does not count as cover per the definitions - particularly as this is a non-overlapping portion of the whole, so really 80% are in view, 20% are totally out of LOS to the majority of the firing weapons, but the minority weapon has 100% LOS so no model in the unit is "completely" out of sight.

Because the majority is out of LOS (unless only the turret was firing) they would get cover.

So I just don't see the argument that the tank provides cover from itself holding any water. aside from going against the basic tenets of not granting cover with the firing unit itself, it seems an over-read interpretation of the firing arc rules, which tell us how to determine which vehicle mounted weapons can be brought to bear upon a particular target given the facing of the vehicle and its weapon mountings. nothing more.

 

The rule on pg. 22 allows LOS and shooting though other members of their unit, pg 64 "squadrons can see and shoot though members of their own unit.

The vehicle rules do not allow you to see or shoot though itself. The exception does not work for a single vehicle.

[rat of vengence]

Since each side of this argument seems to be using the same quotes to present their position, how about we go with the obvious common sense answer; no, they don't get cover.

 

RoV

[ShinyRhino]

Since each side of this argument seems to be using the same quotes to present their position, how about we go with the obvious common sense answer; no, they don't get cover.

 

RoV

 

It's kinda hilarious that you stated both sides are using the same arguments, and then used that as a reason to award the decision to one side of the argument ;)

[DantonTH]

This is starting to smell like Grey Area...

[nighthawks]

I think it comes down to individual interpretation and non water-tight rules writing. it's plain to me what the answer is, but obviously other reasonable people see it differently. to me, the crux is that no majority of models is out of LOS to a majority of weapons.

 

from the 10-model target unit above, gun A can see models 1-4, and gun C can see 7-10, then only 5-6 are out of line of sight to the majority of the firing "models." that's 20% of the unit, not a majority. additionally, there's the 3rd gun in this instance, which can see all 10 target models... I'll agree that the mechanic is not crystal clear, but I think that the intent is.

 

does anyone else really think this belongs in the grey areas thread?

[SeattleDV8]

Would you say the same if this was an infantry unit?

The mechanics are the same.

[rat of vengence]

Would you say the same if this was an infantry unit?

The mechanics are the same.

You mean if the heavy bolter marine can only see some of the enemy squad because some of his own squad are in the way? Yes, I agree the mechanics are the same. Shooting through his own squad wouldn't give a cover save.

 

It's kinda hilarious that you stated both sides are using the same arguments, and then used that as a reason to award the decision to one side of the argument

I know :ph34r: but it just seems to be the pbvious answer to me, although I can see the ambiguity in the rules.

 

RoV

[SeattleDV8]

You mean if the heavy bolter marine can only see some of the enemy squad because some of his own squad are in the way? Yes, I agree the mechanics are the same. Shooting through his own squad wouldn't give a cover save.

The question I was really asking was, In the same set up 3 members of a squad firing.

Squad member A can see all ten members of an enemy squad, squad members B & C can only see 4 each.

 

For a squad I would agree that the exception on pg. 22 applies.

The problem is trying to apply it to a single vehicle, this would mean that it would have a 360 degree LOS and firing arc.

Pg.64 "Like other units, vehicles in squadrons can see and shoot though members of their own unit, just as if they were not there."

If this worked on a single vehicle it would be impossible to have a 'blind spot' as per the FAQ.

[nighthawks]

there's certainly a blindspot - the result is that LOS can be drawn or it cannot. the mechanic of a unit is different because there is no way you could block the 3 firing models' LOS with their own unit. you could have a large rock between two firing lines, one 3-models (our "tank") the other 10 (target) and work out a way (maybe a tunnel in the rock) where the middle shooter could see the entire target unit, and each of the others could only see the 4 members closest to them. but the rock would provide cover without argument, and due to their being no majority of models "in cover" to the view of the majority of the firing models (only 2 unique models are out of sight of the majority of those firing, all others can be seen by 2/3 of them), the best cover save I would allow, personally, is a 5+. but the tanks LOS "blindspot" doesn't grant cover from its own weaponry, a unit never grants cover from its own shooting. so the rock is analogous in therms of LOS, but not exactly the same because it can, without debate, provide cover from shooting.

 

I guess it IS looking more and more like a grey area, but it still seems pretty clear to me.

 

 

there is no intervening terrain, other units, etc..

 

therefore if any gun can see an enemy in the target unit, it can fire, and per the casualty removal rules, kill anyone in that unit.

 

in this example, there is no majority of models in cover to the perspective of the firing unit. (at best, 2 of 10 of the models are unseen to the majority of the firers anyhow).

 

a unit cannot provide cover from its own shooting. the tank's hull is of the same unit as its guns.

[SeattleDV8]

I believe you are misunderstanding the cover rules for multiple firing from a unit.

In the example I gave 4+ cover would be given unless only model A fired alone.

Each model shooting must first determine if the unit gets cover from it.

If A fired as he can see all ten models ; no save

If B fired he can see 4 models ; save

C would be the same as B; save

Then the unit as a whole is compared, it the case above one model gave no save , the other two would.

Since you need a majority of shooting models to have clear shots to deny cover.

The targeted unit would recieve cover unless A fired alone.

Even though all of the targeted could be seen , only one model had a clear shot.

Like-wise each weapon firing from a vehicle is treated as a different model in a unit.

The Own unit exception on Pg.22 and 64 is a matter of different views, I believe it is only for other members of the unit and not in regard to a single vehicle, Notice that the rule only appears in the squadron section of vehicle rules.

[rat of vengence]

What is the opponent getting a cover save from? There is no rock in the way, no trees, and a firer's own unit doesn't provide cover. The LoS issue isn't to do with cover, it is 'can it target it or not'. If you can see a member of that unit, then unless there is actual cover somewhere, they don't get a cover save.

 

...there's certainly a blindspot - the result is that LOS can be drawn or it cannot.

 

This.

 

RoV

[SeattleDV8]

That is incorrect BRB pg. 22 "Models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover for this purpose"

[Frosty the Pyro]

That is incorrect BRB pg. 22 "Models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover for this purpose"

Be that as it may, its out of sight due to the vehicles own unit, and there is an exception that its own unit does not provide cover. Exceptions are supior to general rules.

 

That said this is a legitimate argment so kudos to you.

[rat of vengence]

That is incorrect BRB pg. 22 "Models that are completely out of sight are considered to be in cover for this purpose"

They are not out of sight to the vehicle, assuming we are still using the same example :)

 

RoV

[SeattleDV8]

Not so BRB pg. 58 " ...then work out if the target gets cover saves exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a seperate firing model in a normal unit."

Then looking on pg. 60 we see that a sponsons-mounted weapon has a limited 'arc of sight'.

As the sponson weapon can only see part of the target unit , the unit gets cover.

[nighthawks]

this boils down to an interpretation of what the rules mean by majority of target models and majority of shooting models / tank weapons and the ramifications of blocked LOS due to the firing arc vs. granting cover even on open terrain.

 

I don't suppose we will sort it out. so I am going to add this to the grey areas thread tonight after the boss is done with me. the topic remains open, if anyone else wants to add in.

[ShinyRhino]

One thing that might be helpful to this argument is divorcing LOS from cover.

The rules already state (and have been quoted multiple times) that a unit cannot grant cover from itself. So, the sponson weapon on the Land Raider would not allow cover saves for the target unit because of the Raider's own hull.

But, at the same time, the LOS of the sponson only covers so far. it might be easier to realize that the LOS of the sponson is really only used in this case for valid target selection.

Remember that all of the shooting from a Land Raider is done at the same time, unless you are using the Machine Spirit, and only then if you're firing at a separate unit. Think of the Land Raider not as a tank, but two lascannon Marines and an Assault Cannon standing in the open across from their target. In this case, no cover is granted, so it would equate that no cover is granted against the Raider's firing.

 

The hull of the Land Raider (or any sponson-armed vehicle) is one of those tricky "it's there, but it's not there" rules. You count it for the purposes of what the weapon can shoot at, but not for the purposes of cover.