When is cover , not cover?

[merak1984]

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.

 

I'd refrain from using IIRC, if you are going to mention a rule, quote it from Big Rule Book with Page number for reference.

[Seahawk]

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

This is a trick question. You can't shoot him at all because he's in a transport :tu:

 

Back on topic:

 

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

This is why, at best, I offered a 6+ cover save to the Necron vehicle, but would always argue-rule it to a non-existent save, because really? Then again, as suggested by others it depends on the material of the clear stuff. Window? Nothing. Armored glass? Possibly something.

 

 

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".

Not at all, as I said above (6+ to 7+). I also provided a definition of Line of Sight, not one for Point of View (though they are essentially equivalent). This:

 

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. Windows still allow you to get that bead.

...is why I wouldn't grant a good, if any, cover save.

 

 

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.

100 times yes. Every piece of terrain needs to be discussed before a game to prevent problems occurring mid-game.

 

 

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

Exactly why I said what I said. It was clear to me that it was only 1/3 covered, and in games where it mattered I'd say no cover. In friendly games it gets a 5+ though.

 

 

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

No, and for this it's best to turn to the dictionary again, for those that lack common sense :):

 

Hull: noun - the main body of a vessel, tank, flying boat, etc

 

Rider: noun - something that rides, usually unrelated to the main body,

 

 

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).

This is incorrect. 5th edition is true LOS, which means if you can see it you can shoot it, no matter what. There are no abstractions except for area terrain and Infantry. Vehicles follow different rules where, even if they're in Area Terrain, they still need to be 50%+ obscured.

 

 

Hopefully that answers everyone's questions satisfactorily :P

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Very in depth post Seahawk. I approve :thumbsupsmileythatwedonthave:

 

Good to know on the rider front...makes drawing line a touch annoying at times especially with the new crons where they will be painted near identically.

[Seahawk]

You mean this one?

 

:tu:

 

 

:D

[BOBMAKENZIE]

:tu: .... i am not sure what is wrong with me.

[Leonaides]

my first thought would be many things, bob...

[merak1984]

There are still two+ different opinions in this thread. One is that you'll get a cover save just by being behind an object regardless of what's actually visible through terrain(ie. windows).

 

In that opinion , the hull through windows in the first picture do not count towards the 50% that needs to be visible. Only the tail section of the vehicle which would bring the total visible to about ~25%, therefore in that opinion it's a cover save.

 

Seahawk's posts mention what 5th edition calls "True Line of Sight" 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." So by using this Rule, one can draw line of sight through the window.

 

I'd love to say we clarified it all with Seahawk's last post, but I know that can't be true.

[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

Exactly why I said what I said. It was clear to me that it was only 1/3 covered, and in games where it mattered I'd say no cover. In friendly games it gets a 5+ though.

^ Here you go, merak. The vehicle is not 50%+ covered by the terrain, and therefore does not get a cover save. Unless there is a disagreement between the players, and then it gets a 5+.

 

Seahawk's post did a fine job of clarifying, for me :)

[Seahawk]

Here is the difference.

 

What the rules say:

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." So by using this Rule, one can draw line of sight through the window.

 

What an opinion says:

One is that you'll get a cover save just by being behind an object regardless of what's actually visible through terrain(ie. windows). In that opinion, the hull through windows in the first picture do not count towards the 50% that needs to be visible.

 

 

I myself prefer to play by the rules; after all, if we don't then all sorts of problems arise. As I've said before, we all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how the book says to play.

[merak1984]

@something wycked Yeah, there are still ~10 more.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Everyone understands in a proper game all the argument over the second picture is a non issue. Because in a proper game you will have defined all peaces of cover before hand, especialy any peaces that might be questionable (like a large pain of clear glass or plastic). I mean what would such a peace be doing on the table if it wasnt ment to represent something specific, such as an eldar holo feild (providing cover), or maybe some weird gas currents that make it impasable or dangerous for jump infantry/skimmers/jetbikes (not providing cover). Or maybe it simply IS a giant peace of glass (imperial forge world, those giant chappel windows have to come from somewhere), and provides a 6+ cover save from the reflections messing up the aim, but is removed at the end of the fist shooting phase were the cover save is used. Whatever, but anyone who sits down and notices somethin that odd on the table and doesnt have it defined before the game deserves what they get.

 

As for the first picture, its kinda close some quick mental gynmastics puts it at a hair over 3/7ths obscured, which in a tournament or against an :) i might take the time to really measure and declare it not obscured (no save), but normaly would go ahead and call it a "damn close, 5+"

[Morollan]

Or maybe it simply IS a giant peace of glass

 

And I now have a mental picture of two servitors attempting to move the sheet of glass from one side of the battlefield to the other, avoiding all the bullets and tanks etc only to get to the other side and a jetbike flies straight through it, to the sound of an ironic fanfare from a mute trumpet.

[Hellios]

@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.

 

Your not GW... I however am GW and a whole load more letters at that!

 

Also... because I'm stating what GW has said in one of its own publications... Don't like it? Go cry.

[Olis]

Or maybe it simply IS a giant peace of glass

 

And I now have a mental picture of two servitors attempting to move the sheet of glass from one side of the battlefield to the other, avoiding all the bullets and tanks etc only to get to the other side and a jetbike flies straight through it, to the sound of an ironic fanfare from a mute trumpet.

 

:D

 

You have made me smile this morning, good sir. I thank you.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Your not GW... I however am GW and a whole load more letters at that!

 

:D ... what does that even mean?

 

Also... because I'm stating what GW has said in one of its own publications... Don't like it? Go cry.

 

There is no need to be bordering on rude.

[Isiah]

Yep let's keep things civil gents please.

[Spacefrisian]

The question should be, who in there right mind would make terrain out of glass or other similar type of materials.

[Blitzkrieg861]

Didn't pre-heresy thousand sons use a lot of glass in their structures? I thought I remembered reading that in Prospero Burns, maybe I'm wrong on the chapter though. Either way, glass is for heretics!

[Isiah]

C'mon we're getting way out of +OR+ territory now :rolleyes:

[Olis]

I vote to kill this thread. It's been a mess for a while now. :mellow:

[merak1984]

The second picture (glass) was only there to prove a point about the word "hidden". It's not hidden because you can see 100% of it, and if it were just glass, glass is not defined as terrain on page 21 therefore you wouldn't get a cover save. WHICH IS WHY you would have to talk about it before the game started. So any more talk about the second picture is meaningless, unless you're debating what the word "hidden" means.

[Isiah]

Yep as has already been said by others before, terrain details must be sorted out before the game starts - this is actually part of the game rules [p88 under Defining Terrain] so there is really no excuse not to do it.