predator lascannons

[Ian MacKay]

pueriexdeus;

 

Pg 21 BBB is not the end of cover.

Pg 22 goes on to say "* Own Unit:"

Vehicles cannot see through themselves. Otherwise the example on pg 58 with the Pred and the 2 Ork units would not be needed and the RHS weapon would fire through the Pred at the Trukk.

So the "through own unit" is lost as soon as a multi-weaponed Tank is involved.

 

No TLOS would be blocked if the Pred could see through itself.

If the Pred did not obstruct 'arc of sight', the pictures on pg 59 would not be needed.

 

Cover is not strictly being behind a wall, amongst debris or in woods. It is being not clearly seen by the attacker.

"When any part of the target model's body.... is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover"

 

If you can see less than the majority of the unit with a gun, they count as in cover from that gun.

When you fire a volley of shots, if the majority can see the majority then no cover is given

If the majority of the guns can't see the majority of the unit, the unit gets cover.

 

The information in the box you are talking about on page 58 states the gun cannot be fired. Therefore that weapon does not count for determining cover, only the guns that can draw LOS.

[rat of vengence]

Pg 21 BBB is not the end of cover.

Pg 22 goes on to say "* Own Unit:"

Vehicles cannot see through themselves. Otherwise the example on pg 58 with the Pred and the 2 Ork units would not be needed and the RHS weapon would fire through the Pred at the Trukk.

The example is for what guns can and can't fire, NOTHING to do with cover. If it was it would say so, right? :confused:

So the "through own unit" is lost as soon as a multi-weaponed Tank is involved.

It says that where?

 

Pueriexdeus, you are right, but chill man.

 

RoV

[Marshal Wilhelm]

The information in the box you are talking about on page 58 states the gun cannot be fired. Therefore that weapon does not count for determining cover, only the guns that can draw LOS.

 

Yes, that's right.

However,

If a gun cannot see the majority of the unit, the unit counts as in cover from that gun

 

Pg 21 BBB is not the end of cover.

Pg 22 goes on to say "* Own Unit:"

Vehicles cannot see through themselves. Otherwise the example on pg 58 with the Pred and the 2 Ork units would not be needed and the RHS weapon would fire through the Pred at the Trukk.

The example is for what guns can and can't fire, NOTHING to do with cover. If it was it would say so, right? :confused:

So the "through own unit" is lost as soon as a multi-weaponed Tank is involved.

It says that where?

 

RoV

 

As I said to Ian MacKay, that is right with regards to what can or can't see. AND if you can't see completely, cover is gained.

 

It doesn't have to say so, because it is covered by the cover section rules. All pg 58 is showing the exception multi-gun tanks have for getting LOS on a target. As in, they don't shoot through themselves à la Infantry units.

 

Then if the gun cannot see the majority of the unit (whether vision to the unit is restricted by actual battlefield terrain or by itself - which pg 58 does show) then the unit gets cover as per pg 22.

 

It doesn't say it then and there, but it is shown elsewhere. Saying BBB needs to put the rule, which is covered in the cover section, right then and there, is hopeful.

BBB is not a neat and well laid out thing, that has footnotes referring to other things, etc.

 

That doesn't stop the rules coming into effect, just because BBB organisation is higgledy-piggledy.

[Brother_Dan'l]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. My Predator lines up a shot at the broadside of a Rhino. Because of sponson arcs and range the left Lascannon can only see the forward third of the target. The same issue with the right sponson and only being able to see the aft fifth. Are people claiming that the Rhino should receive Cover Saves from these shots, even though there is nothing between my Predator and the Rhino?

:)

[Grey Mage]

Yes, and its counter intuitive- but based on the idea that you draw line of sight from the gun.

 

Its my opinion that in such a case no cover save would be granted- the turret could see all, and the sponsons would have otherwise clear shots, so no cover saves.

[SeattleDV8]

It wouldn't matter if the turret could see all.

BRB pg. 58 "...unit happens to be in cover from only some of the vehicles weapons, then work out if the target gets cover exactly as if each firing weapon on the vehicle was a seperate firing model in a normal unit."

The left sponson would grant cover (less than 50% visible), the turret would not grant cover, and the right would grant cover.

If the turret alone fired no cover save would be granted, in any other combo is fired a cover save is given.

 

 

If we had the same example 3 models in a unit (say 3 lascannons) trooper A can only see 1/3 of a rhino, trooper B can see it clearly , then trooper C can only see 1/5.

If only trooper B fires the rhino would not get a cover save, any other combo will give the rhino a save.

 

 

So why is it so hard to treat the vehicle the same?

A single vehicle can and does block LOS from some of it's own weapons.

Cover saves are granted by what can be seen by each model/weapon.

 

In both cases it makes no difference if the entire unit/vehicle can be seen by one model/weapon, it only matters if over 50% of the firing models/weapons have a clear shot.

Otherwise a Cover save is given.

[Tanhausen]

I don't quite understand all the discussion...maybe I'm n00b-er than I thought!

 

When shooting any weapon from a vehicle, I always check the LOS from the weapon... I either see it or I don't. If I see it, off goes the shot.

 

If what the issue is regarding is that since a sponson does not see +50% of the target (because the fron of my hull actually blocks part of the target), the objective now gets and obscure save...

...

...

 

I've never seen that, never been done that or even been attempted in any friendly game, chill tournaments or serious tournaments...I'd love to see someone try and pull that one off face to face!

 

In the same line of reasoning, if for some obscure reason, I had slightly messep up when assembling a dreadnought's multimelta and it is not perfectly paralel with say an assault bolter... you are saying that although I face the same way, LOS might be off since I can't draw 2 paralel lines?

 

This is quite absurd, to be honest... but I suppose people play what they play...

 

Just for curiosity, has anybody sucessfully enforced this "obscured" save in a tournament or is this just Theoryhammer?

[Marshal Wilhelm]

In the same line of reasoning, if for some obscure reason, I had slightly messep up when assembling a dreadnought's multimelta and it is not perfectly paralel with say an assault bolter... you are saying that although I face the same way, LOS might be off since I can't draw 2 paralel lines?

 

This is quite absurd, to be honest... but I suppose people play what they play...

 

Just for curiosity, has anybody sucessfully enforced this "obscured" save in a tournament or is this just Theoryhammer?

 

The Dreadnought analogy does not work because both 'arms' slightly extent past the front of the sarcophagus. The Dreadnought also pivots in the Shooting phase, something Tanks cannot.

 

I do not understand what you mean by two parallel lines ~ what do they have to do with it?

 

+++

 

People playing by the rules;

People don't know the rules.

People play what the rules used to be.

People play what they think the rules should be.

People play what they think the rules say.

People see RAI and appeal "to common sense" on what it should be ~ which always seems to be to their benefit, btw :sweat:

People see something in, really, an unrelated scenario and try to draw conclusions.

 

People don't play the rules. :)

 

Then they get indignant when you tell them they are wrong;

"Me? no one tells me I'm wrong!"

"You're beardy!" - no it's called playing by the rules.

"Can't you see it's meant to be like this?" - the Fluffite, who should have a badge that shows competitive players to stay away.

"I can't believe you play like this!" - the guy who thinks his guys are teh awzum, and is disturbed that he won't have it go his way.

 

:)

 

Don't worry, I chucked a tanty when GorkaMorka came out and my brother had a wreckin ball on his trukk. I don't think he modelled it, but probably told me about it (which was good enough for us - we never bothered with WYSIWIG) and yet because the tide was about to be turned, as I had been shooting the daylights out of him with a Heavy BolterEq, I cracked it.

 

So it is not like I can't empathise with people, I have played how I thought things should go, etc. I have been unpleasant to play with.

I was 14 or so and 15 years later and coming to faith have changed my out look.

I still say and think and do stupid things (....less often?....), but I try to make sure that my argument is sound and has more to it than the above examples :)

When I have made fool of myself, I try to own it. When I have been wrong, likewise. And so on.

 

+++

 

Tanks do not provide cover saves from their own shooting. They reduce vision to the target. That is what gives the cover save.

GW may well play it differently and would say 'we never meant for that to happen' and I would not care and would play it their way as soon as it is FAQed. All I am doing is playing the rules as they are written and not assuming that because Unit rules say 'I do not give cover to my own shooting' that it does not give cover by lack of vision.

[Tanhausen]

@Wilhelm

 

Dreadnought

 

Ok, try to be open-minded... because I can't draw it up! haha

 

Imagine, from above, this situation:

 

Instead of the dread being something like |D| imagine \D/ .... so the scenario would be:

 

x ... x

|D| \D/

 

Paralel lines, you can shoot both weapons.

 

Un-paralel lines, since you cant actually see the target, you can't shoot... yes, it is absurd :)

 

My questions stands: has anybody inforced the supposed situation of a predator giving "cover save" to its target because of a sponson not seeing the target 100%?

 

Edit: It damn hard to align the diagrams :P

[Ian MacKay]

The information in the box you are talking about on page 58 states the gun cannot be fired. Therefore that weapon does not count for determining cover, only the guns that can draw LOS.

 

Yes, that's right.

However,

If a gun cannot see the majority of the unit, the unit counts as in cover from that gun

 

As I said to Ian MacKay, that is right with regards to what can or can't see. AND if you can't see completely, cover is gained.

 

It doesn't have to say so, because it is covered by the cover section rules. All pg 58 is showing the exception multi-gun tanks have for getting LOS on a target. As in, they don't shoot through themselves à la Infantry units.

 

Then if the gun cannot see the majority of the unit (whether vision to the unit is restricted by actual battlefield terrain or by itself - which pg 58 does show) then the unit gets cover as per pg 22.

 

It doesn't say it then and there, but it is shown elsewhere. Saying BBB needs to put the rule, which is covered in the cover section, right then and there, is hopeful.

BBB is not a neat and well laid out thing, that has footnotes referring to other things, etc.

 

That doesn't stop the rules coming into effect, just because BBB organisation is higgledy-piggledy.

 

I've been reading this off an on over the week because I'm actually having a hard time understanding what you are saying. Finally it kinda popped in my head...

 

In the example given on page 58, are you contending that since 1 gun of 3 on the vehicle can't target the unit, the unit gets a cover save? Going over this thread several times, I think this is the crux of the discussion.

 

By an extension of that, take a Devastator unit with 4 lascannons. If two have a clear shot and 2 don't, does the target unit have a save if I choose to only fire the two lascannons with a clear LOS? From reading the rules, it appears that GW expects a player to fire at a target with every model regardless of LOS. That's certainly my impression from reading the examples given on page 23.

 

In both examples I provide here, my answer is no, the targets do not get cover saves. This is because the weapons I'm using to actually shoot have direct LOS with no interference or cover available.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

In the example given on page 58, are you contending that since 1 gun of 3 on the vehicle can't target the unit, the unit gets a cover save? Going over this thread several times, I think this is the crux of the discussion.

 

By an extension of that, take a Devastator unit with 4 lascannons. If two have a clear shot and 2 don't, does the target unit have a save if I choose to only fire the two lascannons with a clear LOS? From reading the rules, it appears that GW expects a player to fire at a target with every model regardless of LOS. That's certainly my impression from reading the examples given on page 23.

 

In both examples I provide here, my answer is no, the targets do not get cover saves. This is because the weapons I'm using to actually shoot have direct LOS with no interference or cover available.

 

I am saying that 2 of the 3 guns are what determines the cover save or not.

If 2 of the 3 see without cover given, no cover. "A"

If 2 of the 3 see only with cover given, cover. "B"

If one gun sees without cover, one with a tiny amount of cover and one with cover, then 5+ cover. "C"

 

If 1 of 2 guns (damage, or whatever) see without cover, cover.

 

This is from pg 23

 

+++

 

With your example, pg 16 "A player may choose not to fire with certain models.... this must be declared before checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time"

So you can fire 2 LCs and give no cover.

 

If you did fire 4 LCs and two gave cover, then they get 4+ cover "If half or more of the unit is is cover, then the entire unit is deemed to get cover"

[Marshal Wilhelm]

 

This is covered by pg 59.

 

"On some models it will be actually impossible to literally move the gun and point it towards the target, because of the way the model is assembled or because the gun has been glued in place.

In this case, players should assume that the guns are free to rotate or swivel on their mountings."

 

Walkers guns are considered hull-mounted and can swivel 45 degree. pg 72

pg 59 covers hull mounted guns and how far the can 'track'

[Tanhausen]

@Wilhelm

 

Thanks for pointing out the page :cuss

 

The other reference, I don't have the book with me now, but is it the one about the arches? If so, I'd say it only says whether the target is in LOS or not.

 

Have you personally inforced the "I get cover save due to your own hull obscuring/giving cover save"?

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Have you personally inforced the "I get cover save due to your own hull obscuring/giving cover save"?

 

In 5th ed.

I have played 13 games;

8 games v Orks ~ my brother's

1 game v Tau

1 game v Eldar

1 game v Necrons

2 games v Orks

 

It has never come up.

 

If it did, it would be against me ~ I am the one using Predators.

 

+++

 

On the arcs. If the gun cannot see more than half the squad (because of how the arc works - it gives the TLOS for the gun) with the restriction in sideways vision, it gives cover.

The gun is the same as an infantry-mans head. If vision is reduced, cover is given.

 

That is the same as I have been arguing for with the Predator.

 

A walker pivots in the shooting phase, and so this should (could?) give you a clear shot.

 

+++

 

RAW TIP.

 

People might get cross with you for doing this. That is what playing RAW drives a man too - playing within the Written Rule but doing all you can to get a legitimate and legal advantage.

 

4 Las cannons shoot at a target. It is in cover against 2 of the LC. Thus it gets cover.

So you shoot your Sergeant's bolter at it, if the Sergeant gets a cover free shot.

3/5 get a clear shot. Thus the squad gets a clear shot.

 

This works against any unit, but even against Armour. Even if the bolter has no chance of penetrating it.

 

EDIT: People not liking the rules being played to doesn't matter. If they find me too rough, they don't have to play me again. I am not being a jerk. I am playing competitively and want them to also play to the full potential of their list and the rules too.

If they dislike that, cool.

Not all the sweets we suck on are ones we like :sick:

I am not a big or macho man, but I have no qualms telling someone what the rules are. I expect those rules to be adhered to. It is the only authority we have to govern the game played.

If they don't respect the rules or object to me expecting them to be adhered to, then the game falls in a heap. You can't have one guy playing baseball and the other cricket, if you catch my drift....

[Agrab]

Keep in mind, just cause one gun grants cover doesn't mean they all do. Say only your turrent sees everything, then it gets the shot without cover. If the two sponsons only see 40%, they each provide cover.

Work cover out per gun, like you would a regular unit

[Ian MacKay]

@ Marshal Wilhelm: Thanks! So I now understand completely where you are coming from. With the last few examples we've put up it should clear the air and allow this to be settled. :cuss