When is cover , not cover?

[Azulz]

However, in the heat of the game this can be argued to a 5+ cover save (4+ normally, -1 for the argument rule).

Agreed, due to the "Most Important Rule"

 

 

The second picture is equally as obvious: there is no opaque obscurement, so there is no cover save. Now, if we were to ignore that fact, it would be a 6+ cover save at best (glass offers NO obscurement but may offer something solid). However, in every single case I'd use the "argument rule" to make it a 7+ cover save...or basically, non-existent.

Disagree, this is why I wouldn't live in a Glass House in the grim dark future where there is only war!

[merak1984]

Hmm, yes, that makes total sense. ( to seahawks post)

[merak1984]

PG. 16 BRB "Line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - the must be able to see their foe through, under or over the tangle of terrain and other fighters on the battlefield."

 

What's abstract about "through" "terrain", sparky?

 

@dswanick

[dswanick]

PG. 16 BRB "Line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - the must be able to see their foe through, under or over the tangle of terrain and other fighters on the battlefield."

 

What's abstract about "through" "terrain", sparky?

This :

'What counts as Cover?

Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots.

Glass may not provide concealment(ie: hiding the target) but bullet-proof glass can provide cover(ie: protection) from incoming shots. IE:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UGzyoiScLGA/TJZBaPT3wUI/AAAAAAAAAEY/YW78cy0sgRE/s1600/popemobile.jpg

Same deal, just because you can clearly see your target on the table-top doesn't mean that your little plastic soldier can get a clean shot on the vehicles vulnerable spot through the terrain that is being represented. So if your little plastic soldiers have a Line of Sight then they can target the unit. But Cover saves are more than just the inability to see the target, the Necron unit in the OPs pictures are visible but it gets a Cover save because 50% of the model is Obscured by intervening terrain that might deflect or absorb the shot.

[Azulz]

Picture 1: No cover (it's only about 1/3 hidden, could've chosen a better vehicle;))

 

Picture 2: No cover (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)

 

 

 

Since we're really, really splitting hairs here...

 

 

Hidden: adjective - concealed; obscure; covert;

 

Concealed: verb - to hide; withdraw or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight;

 

Line of Sight/Line of Vision: noun - a straight line that connects the fovea centralis of an eye with the point on which the eye focuses;

 

 

So, according to the mighty dictionary, hidden means there must be an opaque object in between the eye and the object so that the straight line between the two is blocked.

 

The first picture is obvious: there's not enough cover, so no save. However, in the heat of the game this can be argued to a 5+ cover save (4+ normally, -1 for the argument rule).

 

The second picture is equally as obvious: there is no opaque obscurement, so there is no cover save. Now, if we were to ignore that fact, it would be a 6+ cover save at best (glass offers NO obscurement but may offer something solid). However, in every single case I'd use the "argument rule" to make it a 7+ cover save...or basically, non-existent.

 

 

So are you ingnoring the fact that there IS something in the way of the shot being fired, and practicing strict adherence to the actual words on the paper? If so , one could argue that there is no reference as to how you would determine what the "point of view of the firer" is, but there is a shaded box telling you how to figure out "line of sight". Before you think anything , yes , this is a stupid, stupid, argument(pov vs los) , but I also feel it is stupid to comletlely ignore the object in the way of the target not being represented at all.

I'm fairly certain that you dont agree with , just because you can see through it means it isn't there. Which is why I believe you made the comment about granting a 5+ save.

 

I would not like to play with someone who makes me , or expects me to make them put laser pointers into every model in my army to determine what they all can actually see. I would just like an opponent to agree that something IS there , and it should be represented in good spirit of the game.

[merak1984]

I really do love your comparison though, but it's such a 2011 comparison, welcome to 40,000

 

50% rule is the representation :)

 

Using strict interpretation of the rules, the Pope is not >50% obscured, so if I were a firing unit, he would not receive a cover save. If you were really going to argue about it, he would receive a 5+ cover save. But if you were to use the argument of "he's behind plastic" there's no room for that argument as it is not mentioned at all in any fashion in the BRB!

 

The substances that offer cover saves are covered on page 21, BRB.

 

also! the pope is not a vehicle! vehicles are treated differently than infantry!

[Olis]

Might I suggest in future, brother, when you have something to say, get it into one post rather than five successive ones. It could be regarded as spamming a topic. ^_^

[Morollan]

Looked at both pictures in the original post and thought "First one, 4+ cover save, second one, nothing". Despite all the verbal sparring and dictionary quotations since then, that's still exactly what I think and, I would venture, exactly what will be played by the majority of people. Not very OR but there you go...

[Grey Mage]

*shrugs* I have some clear plastic terrain, and we grant cover saves from it all the time- the shots not going through that waygate, wether its cloaked or not. You cant draw an unbroken line along that angle to the target, its area that is obscured *shrugs*

 

Id call it cover in both cases, and Im fairly certain my gaming buddies would agree with the assessment.

[Chengar Qordath]

*shrugs* I have some clear plastic terrain, and we grant cover saves from it all the time- the shots not going through that waygate, wether its cloaked or not. You cant draw an unbroken line along that angle to the target, its area that is obscured *shrugs*

 

Id call it cover in both cases, and Im fairly certain my gaming buddies would agree with the assessment.

I'm inclined to agree, since one would assume that a big transparent chunk of terrain is usually supposed to represent something like a force field or warp portal that would be a reasonable barrier to movement/shooting. If it couldn't block anything, there'd be no reason to have it there as a piece of terrain in the first place.

 

However, I would say that any transparent piece of terrain (like any other potentially unclear piece of terrain) should be discussed with your opponent before the start of the game, to avoid any misunderstandings.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Arent we missing a few key pieces of information?

 

How did you agree to treat these two pieces of terrain before the game?

[JamesI]

In the first picture, it does not appear to me that the vehicle is 50% covered. I'd probably agree to a 5+ save as it is close.

 

In the second picture, the vehicle is more than 50% blocked (though blocked by something see through, whatever the clear thing is there. 4+ cover.

[Hellios]

Errrrrrrrrm a lot of the rules for cover when it comes to vehicles isn't about protection... Hello I have a rail gun that will go into your LRBT on one side and out the other pulling out everything that isn't nailed down on the inside... the fact that a tree is in the way won't make a difference... that tree is going down...

 

A lot of what the vehicle cover rules have to do with is not being able to hit one of the weak points in the armour because you can't get a clear bead. Windows still allow you to get that bead.

 

The RAW has been covered but I thought I would add this for the RAI folks.

[Azulz]

@ merak1984- The 50% rule is not the representation, it is a guidline on how to represent, i.e. a dice roll, modified or un-modified

 

@Bob- The second piece was not introduced onto the game, I added that picture to determine the meaning of "hidden", "obscured", and "intervened"

arguing that just because you cant see it , doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

@Hellios- "A lot of what the vehicle cover rules have to do with is not being able to hit one of the week points in the armour because you can't get a clear bead." Who are we/you to say that?

1. We/you are not GW.

2. I'm not stating a fact here , but, I'm making and educated guess that RAI here (and am willing to bet especially seeing as how the majority of folks reply to this topic) is to grant a "modified" cover save when there is something in the way but may not be sufficient enough to adequetly protect.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

@Bob- The second piece was not introduced onto the game, I added that picture to determine the meaning of "hidden", "obscured", and "intervened"

arguing that just because you cant see it , doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

So Assuming the first piece was a regular ruin. I think it probably wasn't quite 50% on the Ghost Ark. Though if you had asked for cover I would have given it up just fine. Unless of course it was an integral game for Honour or Tourney play then I probably would have called 5+ instead but for the most part I dont think it matters.

 

The second piece is a tougher issue. You'd need to call it before hand, in much the same way I wouldnt generally count broken panes of glass in a building but would probably count a large clear crystal. Either way it needs to be discussed because its not something the standard rules are raedy for :)

[Azulz]

@Bob- The second piece was not introduced onto the game, I added that picture to determine the meaning of "hidden", "obscured", and "intervened"

arguing that just because you cant see it , doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

So Assuming the first piece was a regular ruin. I think it probably wasn't quite 50% on the Ghost Ark. Though if you had asked for cover I would have given it up just fine. Unless of course it was an integral game for Honour or Tourney play then I probably would have called 5+ instead but for the most part I dont think it matters.

 

The second piece is a tougher issue. You'd need to call it before hand, in much the same way I wouldnt generally count broken panes of glass in a building but would probably count a large clear crystal. Either way it needs to be discussed because its not something the standard rules are raedy for :)

 

Agreed

[Isiah]

Either way it needs to be discussed because its not something the standard rules are raedy for :)

 

Exactly :tu:. I think you'd be a fool not to query such things beforehand.

[Azulz]

Either way it needs to be discussed because its not something the standard rules are raedy for :)

 

Exactly :tu:. I think you'd be a fool not to query such things beforehand.

 

Well put. I wholeheartedly agree, but the second pic was not on the table, as I stated earlier the first pic is the situation in question.

Either way, I appreciate all the help on both sides of this topic and know how I will remedy the situation in the future whether at home, or a FLGS.

[merak1984]

I agree with all the topics on the second picture, it's a house rule item not covered by the BRB. And after more and more people joined the discussion , RAW ruling on the first picture is that it is not in cover, but arguably a 5+ cover save.

[Something Wycked]

'What counts as Cover?

Cover is basically anything that is hiding a target or protecting it from incoming shots.

Glass may not provide concealment(ie: hiding the target) but bullet-proof glass can provide cover(ie: protection) from incoming shots. IE:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UGzyoiScLGA/TJZBaPT3wUI/AAAAAAAAAEY/YW78cy0sgRE/s1600/popemobile.jpg

Classic, dswanick :down:

 

Personally I feel that most of you are giving too much weight to the rear end of the vehicle; I think that the ruins gives the vehicle a 4+ cover by covering more than 50% of the vehicle, even taking into account the windows.

 

As for the clear glass/plastic... depends on what the material was discussed to be before the game. Decorative, fragile, clear glass? Er, no, sorry, I'm not granting cover if anything bigger than a standard-issue IG flashlight is shooting at it. Clear "plasteel" or other reinforced material a la the Popemobile above? Definitely cover. Discussed to actually be opaque, such as a tough type of material or something like a warp gate (as Grey Mage brought up)? Yep, cover.

[Jacinda]

Glass may not provide concealment(ie: hiding the target) but bullet-proof glass can provide cover(ie: protection) from incoming shots.

???

A window pane is not going to give the same protection as the pope-mobile's windshield. Unless we start off the game discussing terrain and their effects by saying such and such is balistic grade material, it is just glass and any stubber, bolter or even laspistol will shoot right through it.

 

Pic 1. Cover save. You could even invoke the area terrain rule because you are firing between the wall portions of the ruins.

 

Pic 2. No cover. If I personally can throw a rock through it, an auto-cannon will surely have no problem. But gong by RAW, it is not hidden and glass is not mentioned as a protective cover like brush, ruins or reinforced walls.

 

[ETA]

DOH! Beat by Wycked. If you did not agree before playing that the clear glass is actually some form of material stronger than what it appears to be, it is just a piece of glass with no ability to stop incoming fire.

[Something Wycked]

I just did a little experiment where I cut out the visible pieces of the vehicle out of the first picture and pasted them on top of the second picture, and now its plain to me that the windows in the ruins make less than 50% of the vehicle obscured. But I'd still be granting a 5+ cover save to the Necron player :down:

[merak1984]

I think the original debate was not the actual picture, but what how the rule works. It was a question of HOW the rule worked, not how it worked in picture #1.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Either way it needs to be discussed because its not something the standard rules are raedy for :)

 

Exactly :tu:. I think you'd be a fool not to query such things beforehand.

 

Isiah has now agreed twice with me this week. I think I must be posting better? :P

 

 

I have a question.

 

Do we count the necron warriors/DEldar warriors on the Ghost Ark/Raider for LOS purposes even when they are pretty clearly supposed to be riders?

 

I guess Im asking if Riders are treated as hull or not???

[Lord Melvin]

The first picture counts as 50% obscured (I'd go so far as to say 75%) because models can only shoot through windows if they are in base contact (IIRC).

 

The second picture I'd also say counts as obscured because even though you can see the whole model, there is no clear shot. The glass is still blocking the vehicle. Ultimately, I'd say modify the cover save by -1 or even -2 to represent the firing model being able to see where they want to shoot, but having an obstacle in the way.

 

To be honest, the second picture is not a good example because I can't think of an instance were I'd be playing with huge sheets of glass on a game table.