Odd Cover Save Scenario...

[Azash]

So this scenario came up in a game.

 

My vindicator fired on a squad on the side of a hill. However due to scattering it ended up getting hits on every model in a different squad that was completely behind the hill. Now the hill completely blocked line of site from the Vindicator to the squad that ended up being hit.

 

After discussing it a bit, my opponent and I decided the models that were hit should get a +1 to there cover save. Which in this case being as it was behind a hill or natural embankment the base cover save was 4+. We moved on and everyone was happy with the agreed upon solution.

 

So on the one hand I can see that I can't target the unit but since I didn't target the unit even models that can not be targeted can be hit as a result of the scatter (i.e. models in close combat). Although in shooting rules once you have fired upon and wounded all the models in line of site it says the models not visible to the firing unit can not be fired upon. However that is a scenario to one unit firing upon another and not scattering. So should these models even though completely out of line of site only received a 4+ cover save? Or should they have been able to be targeted at all?

 

If the Vindicator was firing Ordinance Barrage it would be simple but direct fire even through scatter on a unit that is not even in line of site seems very counter intuitive.

[Sanguine Eternal]

Blast weapons are still able to hit models that are not visible due to scatter.  You can't target said unit behind the hill because you need LoS, but scattering and hitting that said unit is perfectly legal.  It can even scatter out of range and still be a legal shot.  The way I see it, is that just because the vindicator doesn't have LoS to the enemy behind the hill shouldn't make a difference in their cover save.  They are either in cover or they aren't.  So I would have said they just get their 4+ cover save, and get no bonus (+1) for being out of LoS.

It's important to have these discussions with your opponent during the game when certain situations arise.  Makes for a better game when you can both come to an agreement.

[Venemox]

page 33 of the BRB, 'In these cases, his are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight...'

 

I think that pretty much covers the 'Yes, it can part'.  

 

As for the save, 100% obscured (no LOS) is at least 25% obscured, so a cover save is as listed on page 18, in this case 5+ for 'area terrain'.

 

The agreement you guys came to was certainly equitable.  It kept the game moving, therefore the fun flowing.  And THAT is the Most Important Rule.

[Dam13n]

Area terrain cover saves only apply to models in area terrain, not behind it.

 

If a model is obscured by a hill then it's still a 5+ cover save.

 

The vehicle rules specify a +1 to cover save if the side facing fire is more than 50% obscured.

 

Therefore your solution of a 4+ save is a reasonable one. Although a case could be made that the basic 5+ cover save is RAW, as it was infantry, not vehicles that were obscured.

[Venemox]

Area terrain cover saves only apply to models in area terrain, not behind it.

 

If a model is obscured by a hill then it's still a 5+ cover save.

 

The vehicle rules specify a +1 to cover save if the side facing fire is more than 50% obscured.

 

Therefore your solution of a 4+ save is a reasonable one. Although a case could be made that the basic 5+ cover save is RAW, as it was infantry, not vehicles that were obscured.

I had initially read and interpreted the OP as saying the squad hit was also on the hill.  Further review has shown that is not the case, and I suffer from 5 AM - itis.

 

I would, however, still hold to the 5+ cover save.  The rule for area terrain on page 91 says that models in area terrain receive the 5+ cover save, even if not obscured 25%.

 

Models on the other side of area terrain, at least 25% obscured, would still fall under the purview of the chart on page 18.   They also would only get +1 from Gone to Ground, rather than the area terrains +2.

 

I think we're all in agreement that the concession of 4+ was the right choice, in this instance.

[Seahawk]

Hills are not area terrain, nor do they even provide any cover save whatsoever. They are not even difficult terrain.

 

That being said, considering it was, at minimum, a 120mm cannon shell that defied the laws of physics, I'd grant the out of sight unit a 4+ cover save. 

 

Still, it all means nothing because none of them can die, anyway. While the rules for blasts say that models out of range and line of sight can be hit and wounded, it then says to allocate unsaved wounds as for a normal shooting attack. We flip back to page 16 to the OUT OF SIGHT header, and it says the wounds are lost, nobody dies and the shooting attack ends.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

Still, it all means nothing because none of them can die, anyway. While the rules for blasts say that models out of range and line of sight can be hit and wounded, it then says to allocate unsaved wounds as for a normal shooting attack. We flip back to page 16 to the OUT OF SIGHT header, and it says the wounds are lost, nobody dies and the shooting attack ends.

 

I was going to mention this, but wanted to wait till I was home with the BRB to make sure. ;)

 

I'm sure we can all agree it's intended that you can remove casualties from units out of line of sight if you are able to wound them.  But this isn't the RAW currently.

[Morollan]

Can't believe that one hasn't been FAQ'd yet.

[dswanick]

Can't believe that one hasn't been FAQ'd yet.

It falls under their "what are you, daft?!?" rule...

[Upstartes]

That's the Second Most Important Rule, right?

[Azash]

Thanks for the replies.

@ Seahawk after rereading the section of the BRB you mentioned I would have to agree with you. I always interpreted it in relation to the firing unit and the unit being fired upon. In my head I was treating indirect fire differently but the rules I see treat indirect and direct fire differently but wound allocation is the same for both. Also this just seems more logical and intuitive...magic D-Cannon shells than can pull a 90 degree corner was weird.

My opponent and I had agreed before the game started to play the crest of the hill as a 4+ cover save; so models partially obscured by the hill top (similar to a barricade). While models exposed on the hill received no cover save at all. Hence why we discussed it and gave the Plague Marines behind the hill a +1 for a 3+.

All is well that ends well though as my opponent made all his cover saves so he did not lose any models in the exchange. Next turn though when the other Vindicator crested the hill it was a whole different ball game

[PureFodder]

A similar situation came up in a game for me, hence looking up people's thoughts on this rule. (A scattering blast hit a different unit to the target one that didn't have LOS and we couldn't figure out the correct cover save).

 

After reading the responses relating to not being able to allocate blast wounds to targets out of line of sight (In my opinion this possibly works as a literal translation of the rules, but makes absolutely no sense in terms of what is happening - it's almost certainly an oversight rather than what is intended and I've not seen anyone interpret the rule like that in practice).

 

I want to raise the question of the Grey Knight's Astral aim rule to make the point.

 

This allows you to "shoot at" targets that don't have LoS, but doesn't provide LoS - so by the same logic, Astral Aim wouldn't let you allocate wounds to any units unless you have LoS, making the power useless? - Just trying to highlight the problem with the logic.

 

Any thoughts?

[dswanick]

This thread can be given the Emperor's Mercy : 

"Page 33 – Blast & Large Blast, Line of Sight

Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their

own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out

of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.", BRB FAQ v1.4 (4/13)

[PureFodder]

Thanks, I'm glad that one can be put to rest.

[Leonaides]

Doesn't help astral aim or nids tho...

[YAK]

just curious... that faq said "target unit" .... the instance the op mentioned his hits were not on his target unit.... thoughts....?

[Saiisil]

just curious... that faq said "target unit" .... the instance the op mentioned his hits were not on his target unit.... thoughts....?

 

Consider this, if the unit that is being hit in the OPs example is not protected by the faq because it isn't the unit the vehicle initially targeted, then it is true that the wound allocation for models out of sight also does not apply as they were not the 'target unit'. My proof is in the wording on page 16.

 

 

warhammer 40,000 main rulebook page 16

If there are no visible models in the target unit,

 

Also, Leonaides, Astral Aim and 'nids have within their own wording a way around the rules, which I do not remember seeing anything in the faqs that negate their abilities, I could be wrong though.