Hive guard

[Jorre]

Hey guys prolly the wrong forum for this but figured I'll ask anyway. If nobody knows I'll check on a nid forum.

 

Hive guard can target without LOS, which I'm fine with, but can you claim a cover save if they can't see more than 50% of your model. I just find it rediculas that they can tear my transports to peaces without even being able to see them and I don't even get a cover save!

[bystrom]

The target can only count the benefit of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard.

It seems to me that you have to be in or right behind cover in relation to the hive guard to get cover. So if more than 50% of your rhino is covered seen from the hive guard but the rhino itself is out in the open, no cover.

[Commander Sasha]

As a 'Nid player, let me clarify:

In fluff terms, the Hiveguard uses the telepathic link between the whole hive to 'know' where it's target is, so it can aim at a unit that it can't see. This translates in game terms to being able to TARGET a unit that it has no Line Of Sight to.

 

Everything else about it's shooting, however, is exactly as normal, so if >50% of a target unit is covered or obscured from the Hive Guard's point of view, they benefit from the relevant coversave. Think of the cover as not about ducking out of sight to make them miss, but instead that the shot may bounce of the wall, a tree etc. As usual, they must be in range too.

 

 

It seems to me that you have to be in or right behind cover in relation to the hive guard to get cover. So if more than 50% of your rhino is covered seen from the hive guard but the rhino itself is out in the open, no cover.

Wrong. If Hiveguard is right next to a wall and can't see the rhino, the rhino gets an obscured save, even if it is 23" away in the middle of an empty table.

[Frosty the Pyro]

As a 'Nid player, let me clarify:

In fluff terms, the Hiveguard uses the telepathic link between the whole hive to 'know' where it's target is, so it can aim at a unit that it can't see. This translates in game terms to being able to TARGET a unit that it has no Line Of Sight to.

 

Everything else about it's shooting, however, is exactly as normal, so if >50% of a target unit is covered or obscured from the Hive Guard's point of view, they benefit from the relevant coversave. Think of the cover as not about ducking out of sight to make them miss, but instead that the shot may bounce of the wall, a tree etc. As usual, they must be in range too.

 

 

It seems to me that you have to be in or right behind cover in relation to the hive guard to get cover. So if more than 50% of your rhino is covered seen from the hive guard but the rhino itself is out in the open, no cover.

Wrong. If Hiveguard is right next to a wall and can't see the rhino, the rhino gets an obscured save, even if it is 23" away in the middle of an empty table.

 

"targets can only count the benifit of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the hive guard." the second sentence in the impaler cannons rules. (the first being no LOS, and the third related to which facing vehicles are hit on)

 

Sorry sasha, but bystrom had it this time. The cover doesnt count unless you are in it (aka area terain), or touching it (like a wall or somesuch).

[Grey Mage]

'lies between them and the hive gaurd' seems to me to say if its well... in between the two models.

 

So HG.........Trees.......rhino has the trees in between, and would allow cover saves.

[vonny]

to gain a cover save vs hive guard, you either need to be

-In area terrain that would give a cover save

-touching terrain that would give cover and sits between you and the hive guard.

 

While this topic is about vehicles, it's more easily explained for me using infantry as an example.

 

Self-stearing spears are shot from the hive guard and fly to you over any obstacles that are in the way. If you are in area terrain, you duck behind some wall or brach just before the spear hits you, and thus gain cover. If you are next to a piece of terrain and that is between you and the hive guard, say, a low wall, you can see the shot coming and duck behind the wall. The spear cannot go over the wall if you're so close behind it.

 

If that same wall is somewhere halfway between you and the hive guard, the spear will go over it with ease and then fly straight at you. If you're in the open with nothing to jump behind at the last moment, you're going to be toast.

 

Considering this with vehicles, who never get a cover save from area terrain anyway, I would still give a cover save if it is in area terrain and that same area terrain would give 50% obscurement from the general direction of the hive guard. If it is parked right behind a wall or hedge that obsucres 50% of the rhino, you get a cover save. If the hive guard is parked right behind a wall but you're out in the open, then I'm afraid you're out of luck.

There's a reason hive guard are a standard choice for any tyranid player - without it, there's very little they can do to vehicles at range, and hive guard themselves are very effective at what they do for not too much of a points cost.

[Commander Sasha]

I lose the discussion, but from now on my Hiveguard ignore cover more often! Win :D

Thanks for the clarification!

[Grey Mage]

Im not seeing where you need to be touching the cover that is between the two models... as far as I can tell the only difference between the hive gaurds shooting and normal shooting is the ability to target things out of LOS.

[Commander Sasha]

I turned to TheTyranidHive.com for advice, and the consensus reached in a previous (and heated!) thread, was that although there is a small case to be made for bad grammar, most agreed that the coversave is only granted if touching or in the terrain; needs to be FAQed though.

[breng77]

"targets can only count the benifit of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the hive guard." the second sentence in the impaler cannons rules. (the first being no LOS, and the third related to which facing vehicles are hit on)

 

Grey Mage I think you are misreading this statement. The compound statement here is in or touching + lies between. The lies between part is in addition to the touching the terrain. The statement is not in or touching or lies between. i.e. a model touching cover that is not between that model and the hiveguard does not benefit from cover. For example if there is a wall between the Hive Guard and their target that target must be touching that wall to get cover.

[Grey Mage]

*blinks* apparently I was. Sorry, I was reading 'If they are touching or it lies between them and the hive gaurd'. My bad.

[breng77]

No problem it happens to us all. (I cannot tell you how long I thought that the Tervigon was Strength 6)

[Heimdall Skullcrusher]

This is how Tau Smart Missiles work too right?

[breng77]

Yes, pretty much word for word the same.

[Frosty the Pyro]

*blinks* apparently I was. Sorry, I was reading 'If they are touching or it lies between them and the hive gaurd'. My bad.

 

 

Its alright easy mistake to make with how that was worded, and I feal for you, the nid dex is probably the only one thats even more sloppily put together than the wolf dex. And you play both.

[DarkGuard]

*blinks* apparently I was. Sorry, I was reading 'If they are touching or it lies between them and the hive gaurd'. My bad.

 

Don't worry too much about it, I used to see it the way you see it. Thankfully the guy at my local store told me how it actually works and my Hive Guard are now some of the best things in my Nid army.

[Niiai]

On a side note this is how my friend countered my hive guards:

 

Konga line predator first (bare boned 70 points) dread with autocanons on extenders that shot being the predators, then a landspeder tutching that again and a transport in the end I belive.

 

Oh yeah, and they all had 5 terminators standing in front of them again. ;)

[Grey Mage]

*blinks* apparently I was. Sorry, I was reading 'If they are touching or it lies between them and the hive gaurd'. My bad.

 

 

Its alright easy mistake to make with how that was worded, and I feal for you, the nid dex is probably the only one thats even more sloppily put together than the wolf dex. And you play both.

Yeah, I think Ill have to get a second brace of these guys... theyre even more useful than I thought.

 

Im just pleased that the FAQ clarified that they cannot fire upon transported units.... some players were attempting shenanigans on that one.

[Frosty the Pyro]

*blinks* apparently I was. Sorry, I was reading 'If they are touching or it lies between them and the hive gaurd'. My bad.

 

 

Its alright easy mistake to make with how that was worded, and I feal for you, the nid dex is probably the only one thats even more sloppily put together than the wolf dex. And you play both.

Yeah, I think Ill have to get a second brace of these guys... theyre even more useful than I thought.

 

Im just pleased that the FAQ clarified that they cannot fire upon transported units.... some players were attempting shenanigans on that one.

 

 

yes but the reason they cant is because of a rule in the ruins/building section which says you cannot make shooting attacks against embarked units (pg 70 under attacking buildings). FAQ made a lot of bad calls on nids as far as actualy following the rules, mostly with spores and the doom. But thats an argument for a different topic

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Im just pleased that the FAQ clarified that they cannot fire upon transported units.... some players were attempting shenanigans on that one.

 

Its a kick in the junk for tau though XD with all the SMS they might have not had to bother trying to pop rhinos. :)

[maturin]

I've spent the last 30 minutes trying to wrap my head around this very poorly written rule. Consensus on the web seems to be to play by RAI, not RAW.....but any way you look at it, GW's poor writing seems to be at fault again.

 

In the rulebook, there is no punctuation in the relevant sentence. But consider the effect of a single comma:

 

"The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching, if it lies between them and the Hive Guard."

 

vs.

 

"The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in, or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard."

 

 

If you read the rule the first way, then you get a cover save if the Hive Guard can't see you (ie the rule only speaks to a certain subset of conditions - when you're in cover or touching it. Presumably other cover/obscured saves apply as normal).

 

If you read the rule the second way, you don't. (which I think is how most people see it).

 

Am I off base on this? Both interpretations seem reasonable by RaW.

[breng77]

Yes, your first comma makes no sense and is improper english grammer. The proper statement would have to read

 

 

 

"The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in, touching, or if it lies between them and the Hive Guard."

 

Furthermore there is no comma and so there is no separation of the toughing and lies between. RAW you don't get cover unless you are in it, or touching intervening cover.)

[maturin]

Yes, the comma in the first sentence is not gramatically correct. But I placed it there to illustrate a different reading of the sentence.

Your 3-comma version is not what I meant by my first sentence.

 

A different wording of my first sentence would have been, "The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in if it lies between them and the Hive Guard. The target can only count the benefits of cover they are touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard".

 

Does this clarify what I'm trying to say? And why I think it's possible you'd still get a cover save from a lack of LOS, since the rule would not specifically address that situation?

 

 

Any way you look at it, this sentence is horrible English.

[Sparhawk]

Any way you look at it, this sentence is horrible English.

 

Well I believe that GW can be forgiven for possibly having a bad English translation of the rules. I understand that many issues can be introduced when the authors produce a version of the rules that isn't in their native language.

 

GW has done a laubable job for a Japanese company.

[breng77]

Does this clarify what I'm trying to say? And why I think it's possible you'd still get a cover save from a lack of LOS, since the rule would not specifically address that situation?

 

While it does clarify what you were saying I still don't think, your interpretation is correct. Stated as you have it there the target would still need to be in or touching cover, regardless of LOS. Which is how the rule currently works. i.e. if I cannot see you and you are touching the thing that causes me not to see you you get cover.