Cover Save Scenario!

[merak1984]

Okay, the premise behind this thread is to determine which units receive a cover save from the shots of the squad at the bottom with members 'A', 'B', and 'C'. Assume all shots are hits, all shots are in range, and all shots are Assault 1. Assume the unit ABC shoots each enemy unit. I could have physically set this whole scenario out with actual models, but this way it takes the guesswork out of it, I have given you all the variables typed out.

 

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r269/Merak1984/CoverSavePicture-1.jpg

 

Enemy Infantry Squad D has gone to ground behind barricade.

Enemy Tank E is inside area terrain. 66% visible by each A, B, and C. Front Armor 13, Side Armor 10, Rear Armor 10.

Enemy Tank F is behind the ruins and the side armor is 66% visible from C, and 35% visible by each A and B. Front Armor 14, Side Armor 14, Rear Armor 14.

Enemy Infantry Squad G has 2 members inside Area Terrain.

Enemy Infantry Squad H is partially obscured by Squad I.

Enemy Infantry Squad I has 2 members fully inside Area Terrain, 1 member partially inside area terrain, and 2 members outside area terrain.

 

What are the cover saves, if any, received by Enemy units D,E,F,G,H, and I ? PLEASE INCLUDE REFERENCES FROM Big Rule Book, Errata, or FAQ, with Page number if you intend to answer.

[dswanick]

All of my units get an appropriate Cover save from the shots of all units in this diagram (see BRB, Pg.21, Cover Save Chart). Unless you disagree with me, then the save is modified by +1 (BRB, Pg.22).

Honestly this diagram is not very useful and much too open to interpretation, maybe pictures of a diorama illustrating what +OR+ question is in dispute would be helpful.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Fine, all infantry squads recieve cover of 4+ except for D which gets a 3+ due to going to ground.

squads G and I becasue more than half there models are in area terain (partialy in counts for infantry).

H becasue it has another unit in the way.

D becasue of the baracade

 

 

No vehicles recieve cover saves.

E because its more than 50% visable by models B and C (remember only fireing models are counted, and with vehicles only models fireing weapons that can hurt said vehicle count, thus model A doesnt count)

F becasue more than 50% visable by model C, the only one with a weapon able to hurt AV14, and thus the only model that counts.

 

If F had a lower AV it would receive cover save as model B and A's fire would then count, that save however could be denighed by declaring before hand that models A and B were not fireing. (note both A and B would need to count for F to receive a save, as when shooting at a vehicle you need the majority to have unclear shots to give a save, 50% will not do. Against infantry 50% will do.)

 

 

 

This isnt even fun cover work, you want interesting cover questions you want the ones where weather or not the target receives cover can be changed by the shooting unit by controling who is and who isnt firing there weapons.

[merak1984]

All of my units get an appropriate Cover save from the shots of all units in this diagram (see BRB, Pg.21, Cover Save Chart). Unless you disagree with me, then the save is modified by +1 (BRB, Pg.22).

Honestly this diagram is not very useful and much too open to interpretation, maybe pictures of a diorama illustrating what +OR+ question is in dispute would be helpful.

 

 

There is NO room for interpretation in this picture, everything is laid out exactly as it happened.

 

Also , for Tank E, STR 4 to side armor 10 can glance, therefore you would include his shot.

 

There's a reason I made this scenario, and I would like more contributions from different people. Moderators , please join in :D

[SeattleDV8]

In tank E's case, model A may or may not fire, if he did fire there would be a save...but if he didn't, no save would be given.

I believe most people would give up a slim chance at a glance in order to deny the tank a cover save.

Otherwise Frosty is totally correct.

[Isiah]

There's a reason I made this scenario, and I would like more contributions from different people. Moderators , please join in <_<

 

You need to tell us what it is merak1984. These cover questions are becoming a bit tiresome. If you have a straight rules query just spell it out.

[merak1984]

In tank E's case, model A may or may not fire, if he did fire there would be a save...but if he didn't, no save would be given.

I believe most people would give up a slim chance at a glance in order to deny the tank a cover save.

Otherwise Frosty is totally correct.

 

This is incorrect, in the scenario, tank E is able to be seen by all members of the squad at 66% so even if the str 4 actually shot, there would be no cover save

 

 

There's a reason I made this scenario, and I would like more contributions from different people. Moderators , please join in :yes:

 

You need to tell us what it is merak1984. These cover questions are becoming a bit tiresome. If you have a straight rules query just spell it out.

 

Ultimately, one of the questions that my opponents have argued is: Do vehicles get a cover save by being 51% 'BEHIND' terrain? Or, Do vehicles get a cover save by being 51% "Hidden"(out of line of sight)?

 

 

I understand I've made a lot of queries about cover saves, but, I am doing them for a point and not just spamming the forum. Thank you all for your contributions, as they're much appreciated.

[dswanick]

In tank E's case, model A may or may not fire, if he did fire there would be a save...but if he didn't, no save would be given.

I believe most people would give up a slim chance at a glance in order to deny the tank a cover save.

Otherwise Frosty is totally correct.

 

This is incorrect, in the scenario, tank E is able to be seen by all members of the squad at 66% so even if the str 4 actually shot, there would be no cover save

 

 

There's a reason I made this scenario, and I would like more contributions from different people. Moderators , please join in :rolleyes:

 

You need to tell us what it is merak1984. These cover questions are becoming a bit tiresome. If you have a straight rules query just spell it out.

 

Ultimately, one of the questions that my opponents have argued is: Do vehicles get a cover save by being 51% 'BEHIND' terrain? Or, Do vehicles get a cover save by being 51% "Hidden"(out of line of sight)?

 

 

I understand I've made a lot of queries about cover saves, but, I am doing them for a point and not just spamming the forum. Thank you all for your contributions, as they're much appreciated.

And this is exactly why I stated that this thread is pointless and the drawing is useless. To some, 66% visible means 66% visible to each model while to others it meant visible to 66% of the three models in your hypothetical scenario. Hypotheticals are dangerous in a debate because they always come with a lot of unspoken assumptions. You do know what happens when you "assume" right? Also, you are hair-splitting the ideas of "hidden" and "behind" and yet the rules weren't written with the idea of transparent terrain - they are built on the idea that terrain will represent what are actual features of some fictional battlefield, but that they will be line of sight blocking, opaque features. In another thread you argued that some transparent terrain feature couldn't give a cover save because it was transparent, yet others assumed it was used only so that a full view of the model could be shown for purposes of exactly determining if >50% was behind said feature. Then it devolved into an argument about if it was glass or some impenetrable "shielding material" and that is where this thread comes in.

[merak1984]

I don't get what you mean about assumptions, I laid out exactly what would happen. Dswanick, please pay attention to the scenario, as that's twice I've had to tell you. I said, "CAN BE SEEN 66% THROUGH WINDOWS ON THE WALLS OF THE RUIN" And ALSO if you paid attention to the description below the picture, it says "66% visible by each A, B, and C. Please, do not post any more unless you have something to actually contribute that isn't being hostile.

[Seahawk]

I don't see anything open to interpretation except what the area terrain is on the right side. The cover rules in the book are exceedingly clear though...still, I think he's trying to get a solid argument for his gaming group, who doesn't believe in the cover system? I'm going to go left to right in my answers. Note that, for vehicles, I simply say "open view" when it's not 50% obscured.

 

 

Squad D: 4+ cover save (p.21), modified to 3+ (p.24), though it depends on the heights of that squad and the shooters (p.21). Keep in mind that if this squad could shoot back, the other guys also get a 4+ cover save because Squad D is not in base contact with the barrier (p.22)

Tank E: No cover save no matter how many models are firing as it's open view to all (p.62)

Tank F: No cover save, as only model "C" can actually hurt it and it's an open view from him (p.62)

Squad G: 4+ cover save if it is also ruins (p.21), as half or more of the models in the unit are in cover (p.22)

Squad I: 4+ cover save if it is also ruins (p.21), as the majority of the models in the unit are in cover, and the sliver of a base does count (p.22)

Squad H: 4+ cover save if it is also ruins (p.21) and only if it is between two elements of the Area Terrain (p.22). It also gets a 4+ cover save from the Intervening models rule (p.21) because, from the majority of the shooters, they can only see half of the target unit in the open, which provides Squad H with a cover save (p.22)

 

 

Ultimately, one of the questions that my opponents have argued is: Do vehicles get a cover save by being 51% 'BEHIND' terrain? Or, Do vehicles get a cover save by being 51% "Hidden"(out of line of sight)?

Not to be rude (well, maybe a little ;)), but your opponents are morons. The rule for vehicles clearly states "hidden by terrain or models" and never makes a blurb about simply being "behind" terrain. In fact, nowhere in the rules for cover in the whole book say anything about being "behind terrain." It's all "hidden obscured hidden," which all means the same thing, as I already defined in the other cover thread and you did in that post.

[dswanick]

Ultimately, one of the questions that my opponents have argued is: Do vehicles get a cover save by being 51% 'BEHIND' terrain? Or, Do vehicles get a cover save by being 51% "Hidden"(out of line of sight)?

Not to be rude (well, maybe a little ^_^), but your opponents are morons. The rule for vehicles clearly states "hidden by terrain or models" and never makes a blurb about simply being "behind" terrain. In fact, nowhere in the rules for cover in the whole book say anything about being "behind terrain." It's all "hidden obscured hidden," which all means the same thing, as I already defined in the other cover thread and you did in that post.

Well, not to be rude, but this is a complete mis-representation of what "his opponents" (ie those in the other thread) argued. Not all of "his opponents" argued that 50%+ "behind terrain" = 50%+ "hidden".

Further, there are rules for models getting a Cover Save even when in plain sight and not even 1% obscured/hidden/not visible. So, again, these things are not as plain as they seem by his simplistic representations.

I don't get what you mean about assumptions, I laid out exactly what would happen. Dswanick, please pay attention to the scenario, as that's twice I've had to tell you. I said, "CAN BE SEEN 66% THROUGH WINDOWS ON THE WALLS OF THE RUIN" And ALSO if you paid attention to the description below the picture, it says "66% visible by each A, B, and C. Please, do not post any more unless you have something to actually contribute that isn't being hostile.

I am "paying attention", and you really should throttle back on the arrogance. You've created a scenario which appears to me to be tailor-made to elicit a specific, pre-drawn conclusion - not to debate some questionable or unclear point of Official Rules.

Further, while you may be the OP, this is not your personal thread or forum. You posted here for the comment of all members of the B&C - tough luck if you don't like that some of us aren't playing into your game.

[Saiisil]

Personally I, if I were the person firing would grant Tank E a 4+ cover. The reason for this is my understanding of the cover rules for vehicles is that they are created exceptions to the existing cover rules presented earlier in the book and in those exceptions none are made for area cover so you would follow the normal rules for area cover. Tank F if anything I would give it a 6+ or 5+ at best. That is just me and the way I have read the rules.

[Seahawk]

Ultimately, one of the questions that my opponents have argued is: Do vehicles get a cover save by being 51% 'BEHIND' terrain? Or, Do vehicles get a cover save by being 51% "Hidden"(out of line of sight)?

Not to be rude (well, maybe a little :P), but your opponents are morons. The rule for vehicles clearly states "hidden by terrain or models" and never makes a blurb about simply being "behind" terrain. In fact, nowhere in the rules for cover in the whole book say anything about being "behind terrain." It's all "hidden obscured hidden," which all means the same thing, as I already defined in the other cover thread and you did in that post.

Well, not to be rude, but this is a complete mis-representation of what "his opponents" (ie those in the other thread) argued. Not all of "his opponents" argued that 50%+ "behind terrain" = 50%+ "hidden".

Further, there are rules for models getting a Cover Save even when in plain sight and not even 1% obscured/hidden/not visible. So, again, these things are not as plain as they seem by his simplistic representations.

Fair enough.

 

What I meant by his opponents is "his gaming group opponents," not his "debate opponents." I'm only going on what he said, that his opponents say behind = hidden, and this is simply not the case.

 

Yes, there are such rules for "open" cover saves, but they have nothing to do with terrain. Rather, they are given via special rules or wargear (going to ground, moving flat out, smoke launchers, force fields, Orky shenanigans, etc). The cover rules for terrain are clear: the target needs to be "hidden," to whatever degree the rule asks for.

 

 

The reason for this is my understanding of the cover rules for vehicles is that they are created exceptions to the existing cover rules presented earlier in the book and in those exceptions none are made for area cover so you would follow the normal rules for area cover.

The presence of Area Terrain does not automatically grant a cover save to vehicles. Read page 62 of the BRB again:

 

- "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence."

 

They still need to be 50% obscured (hidden, having the shooter's LOS blocked) to gain a cover save, even when in Area Terrain.

[Blitzkrieg861]

Where is there any room to debate this rule? It's pretty simple...

 

Vehicles need to be 50% or more obscured to get cover

Infantry needs 50% obscured or 50% in area terrain (barring the opponent isn't within range to ignore the area terrain) to get cover

If you cannot agree, it's a 5+ save

 

This is like the third or fourth topic about cover. If people in your area are too stupid to figure this out, you need to find more people to game against. There is nothing to debate here. Seahawk, can you just close this? It's getting heated and the questions are ridiculous. We shouldn't need to waste bandwidth on this great forum for a question that can be solved by just reading the rules book. Hell, if a 13 year old at the local GW can figure this out...

[Saiisil]

- "Vehicles are not obscured simply for being inside area terrain. The 50% rule given above takes precedence."

 

ok, not sure how I have kept missing that bullet, top it off on other forums when I brought that up no one ever pointed it out.

[Valerian]

Where is there any room to debate this rule? It's pretty simple...

 

Vehicles need to be 50% or more obscured to get cover

Infantry needs 50% obscured or 50% in area terrain (barring the opponent isn't within range to ignore the area terrain) to get cover

 

I'm pretty sure infantry doesn't need to be '50% or more obscured to got cover', that rules only applies to vehicles. Cover saves for infantry are much more liberal, and assumes a model will make best use of cover. I'd provide a quote, but I'm away from my book. I'm sure someone will come along, however...

 

Valerian

[dswanick]

Where is there any room to debate this rule? It's pretty simple...

 

Vehicles need to be 50% or more obscured to get cover

Infantry needs 50% obscured or 50% in area terrain (barring the opponent isn't within range to ignore the area terrain) to get cover

 

I'm pretty sure infantry doesn't need to be '50% or more obscured to got cover', that rules only applies to vehicles. Cover saves for infantry are much more liberal, and assumes a model will make best use of cover. I'd provide a quote, but I'm away from my book. I'm sure someone will come along, however...

 

Valerian

I suspect he meant 50% of the models in the unit for the infantry models. But this illustrates my point - it's difficult at best to have this debate on a forum because of misinterpretations and misrepresentations of one anothers arguments (and that's without throwing in a condescending attitude).

[Blitzkrieg861]

That's exactly what I mean, dswanick. The rules for cover saves are neither difficult to interpret or to follow. If you cannot agree, roll a 5+ cover. I forsee a lot of ninkumpoops rolling for 5+ saves because they have the reading level of a 3rd grader... and even that's being insulting to a 3rd grader.

[dswanick]

That's exactly what I mean, dswanick. The rules for cover saves are neither difficult to interpret or to follow. If you cannot agree, roll a 5+ cover. I forsee a lot of ninkumpoops rolling for 5+ saves because they have the reading level of a 3rd grader... and even that's being insulting to a 3rd grader.

:lol: Well, to be fare to 3rd graders and ninkompoops, GW's rules are never easy to interpret or straight-forward to follow. GW has an uncanny nack for taking the simplest game mechanic, creating a non-sensical exception, tucking that exception away in an obscure, and unrelated section of their rules, and then contradicting the exception in another section of the book. Thus creating a need for an FAQ to clarify the situation, but instead just releasing an FAQ which address the question posed without actually answering it.

[Blitzkrieg861]

LOL I stand (or sit as it would be at this time) corrected...

 

Getting back to the topic though. The OP's scenarios are pretty clear cut. There really isn't a need to stress out over this, brother. As per the BRB and my above post (as well as others) follow those guidelines and if you and your opponent really cannot agree, it states specificly in the BRB to give a 5+ save.

 

I really hope you don't have to play with people like this anymore. The game shouldn't be this difficult. It's supposed to be fun and social (barring tournies). Laugh it off, ban a few guys from your Chapter, scream your love for the Emperor and laugh as maniacly as possible when the heretics and xenos scum die at your feet.

[merak1984]

I agree with you Blitzkrieg861. I shouldn't have to go to such lengths to get the correct RAW answer, but I had to. I will not stand/sit idly by while rules are misinterpreted from their actual written meaning.

[Isiah]

Two posts invisied - let's keep the personal sniping out of this please gents.

[dswanick]

I agree with you Blitzkrieg861. I shouldn't have to go to such lengths to get the correct RAW answer, but I had to. I will not stand/sit idly by while rules are misinterpreted from their actual written meaning.

You know, before you go congratulating yourself on how much smarter you are than everyone else who posts on the Bolter & Chainsword – you might want to re-read the BRB Pgs.21, 22, and 62. And if you can’t then understand where you might be wrong, I suggest you re-re-read it again.

 

I hate that GW is so protective of their Intellectual Property that an +OR+ Forum on a fan site isn’t allowed to post the portions of their rules relevant to a debate on the rules… :D

[Isiah]

I hate that GW is so protective of their Intellectual Property that an +OR+ Forum on a fan site isn’t allowed to post the portions of their rules relevant to a debate on the rules… :P

 

You are OK to post rules within a discussion environment such as the OR. Just don't post parargrpahs of the stuff :). Check the forum rules:

 

Rules and Fluff from GW sources: GW is fairly strict about keeping their rules and fluff protected. In the past we have even gotten requests to remove things from GW in regards to Fluff and Rules. This means scans, quotes and other 'full postings' of rules and fluff aren't allowed. You can quote them in small portions when it is appropriate for the discussion but entire pages of fluff/rules will be removed.

 

Hope this helps dswanick.

 

Cheers

I

[dswanick]

I hate that GW is so protective of their Intellectual Property that an +OR+ Forum on a fan site isn’t allowed to post the portions of their rules relevant to a debate on the rules… :(

 

You are OK to post rules within a discussion environment such as the OR. Just don't post parargrpahs of the stuff :). Check the forum rules:

 

Rules and Fluff from GW sources: GW is fairly strict about keeping their rules and fluff protected. In the past we have even gotten requests to remove things from GW in regards to Fluff and Rules. This means scans, quotes and other 'full postings' of rules and fluff aren't allowed. You can quote them in small portions when it is appropriate for the discussion but entire pages of fluff/rules will be removed.

 

Hope this helps dswanick.

 

Cheers

I

Yeah, it's the "paragraphs of stuff" that's the problem. :P I've wanted to have a cover saves debate for a while now, but to do it right would require almost three pages of quotes. :P