HomeUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Cover, LOS and Idiocy...

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Exitus Acta Probat

avatar

Posts : 1062
Join date : 2011-05-02
Age : 48
Location : Dayton, Ohio

PostSubject: Cover, LOS and Idiocy...   Sun May 22, 2011 8:07 am

So, in my test game with Edge on Friday I made an error (as I do on occasion) based on edition...but it brought me to a more-than-common conundrum I find myself in.

He brought a unit up to engage my Reavers with a CCS. He positioned them in such a way that the MODELS were clear (for the most part, or at least > 50%) but their bases were >75% blocked by an intervening unit and 50% within some area terrain.
When I wanted to claim cover, he looked at me funny and questioned it...but I was convinced I had cover and (in typical Edge fashion) he graciously acquiesced.

After thinking about it, I'm iffy on the bases part...but pretty clear on the terrain part (yes I took DangTerr for models in the rocks).

Part the first;
With regards to jetbikes, as they are on flight stands, do you reference the base at all for cover?
(this flows into part the second)...

Part the second;
If you do NOT reference the bases for cover, at all, at what point do you begin to argue dangerous terrain tests?
The reason for this question is as follows...

If I land in some rocks, but the bikes themselves are completely above it (for LOS purposes) do I have to take a DT test and still receive NO cover benefit?
The base is in terrain, but the bikes themselves are WHOLLY expose by TLOS.
My argument for cover was partially based on a hybridization(in my head) of the current and prior editions(with regards to terrain etc).
But it brought up that interesting conundrum.

(these are the thoughts that keep me out of the good schools...and up all night when I think I may have argued incorrectly on a ruling)
Back to top Go down
http://exitusactaprobat1.blogspot.com/
Edge

avatar

Posts : 1428
Join date : 2010-06-20
Age : 44
Location : Centerville, OH

PostSubject: Re: Cover, LOS and Idiocy...   Sun May 22, 2011 8:22 am

I thought about it afterwards as well.
What I settled on was if the unit is an 'Infantry' model no matter the base...they follow infantry rules for cover. So yeah, you are good as far as I know.

Another came up yesterday.
A Vendetta on the flight stand is shooting at a unit with clear sight to the entire unit from the weapon mounts. There is an intervening unit but not blocking LOS.

Does the target unit receive a cover save because I am shooting through a unit???

_________________
Declaring Martial Law - FTW
http://40k-edge.blogspot.com/
Back to top Go down
http://40k-edge.blogspot.com/
Hand of Dume

avatar

Posts : 1581
Join date : 2010-06-19
Age : 47
Location : Wastelands of Miami County... ie Tipp City

PostSubject: Re: Cover, LOS and Idiocy...   Sun May 22, 2011 8:26 am

Was it area terrain, if so, then the reavers get the cover save and must take the DT test. It wouldn't matter about the bases. If not area terrain, then the models themselves would need the 50% coverage to get the cover save and not the bases.


_________________
MARTIAL LAW- FTW

Let's just play the friggin' game and have some fun!
Back to top Go down
Exitus Acta Probat

avatar

Posts : 1062
Join date : 2011-05-02
Age : 48
Location : Dayton, Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Cover, LOS and Idiocy...   Sun May 22, 2011 8:39 am

Edge;
as with the BattleCannon (from friday) it's by Wpn Mount (from a vehicle), not base...so the Vendi would have ignored cover. (also, unfortunately, bikes aren't infantry per-se, are they?)

HoD;
I have to re-read the rules, which I haven't done yet (busy freakin weekend)...
which would have probably made this whole query moot.
So I take it the section specifically clarifies model LOS?
At what point do we define this? that's the query...if we don't count the base, then can we 'overlap' those bases in an intermixed unit?
(yes, that is a query of the ridiculous...but I'm looking for precedent. This comes from a search for 'at what point do we separate a model from it's base' for the purposes of LOS/Movement{etc} interactions? It is normal to consider the base as part of a model for infantry, but what about flight-stand infantry/bikes?...noting that none of this applies to vehicles)
Back to top Go down
http://exitusactaprobat1.blogspot.com/
Warmonger

avatar

Posts : 1840
Join date : 2010-06-20
Age : 53
Location : Springfield

PostSubject: Re: Cover, LOS and Idiocy...   Sun May 22, 2011 10:02 am

It may be right or it may be wrong, but I never claim cover from anything blocking my flight bases only the actual model.

_________________
Martial Law-Salute
Back to top Go down
Exitus Acta Probat

avatar

Posts : 1062
Join date : 2011-05-02
Age : 48
Location : Dayton, Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Cover, LOS and Idiocy...   Sun May 22, 2011 10:57 am

Warmonger wrote:
It may be right or it may be wrong, but I never claim cover from anything blocking my flight bases only the actual model.

I haven't used 'jetbikes' in quite a while, nor gargoyles, so the DE are introducing a new 'element' in thought processes for the nonce.
As it isn't reflex for me (anymore), whether 'right or wrong' the fact you handle it that way is important to me. Any step that produces less consternation, and fewer chances for disgruntled reactions, in an event is a good thing...especially considering (if wearing the shirt, or just generally known) my actions in events would reflect on more than just myself now.

BUT; I also need to know how the RAW of it shall pan out in the long run, as I also run events (and don't wish to get caught with my pants down in an event)...so 'to the BRB' for dissection I go! Smile
Back to top Go down
http://exitusactaprobat1.blogspot.com/
Exitus Acta Probat

avatar

Posts : 1062
Join date : 2011-05-02
Age : 48
Location : Dayton, Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Cover, LOS and Idiocy...   Sun May 22, 2011 11:16 am

Okay, BRB RAW answers...

pg 21; when are models in cover...specifically refers to pg 16 LOS rules, which defines any part of the target model, NOT base (though it doesn't state that specifically, the breakdown in no way includes the base..which I would then extrapolate to be part of the whole 'except antennae, weapons and banners don't qualify' qualification...so that helps say the base is not part of model)...
creating an interesting quandry that if a bike (or small skimmer) cannot be seen EXCEPT for its flight base, it cannot be targeted...though good luck producing that result.

pg 22;
two specific entries under exceptions produces the final two answers(2nd and 3rd bullet point under 'exceptions')...which helps you out as well, Monger (if you are also ignoring terrain your bases 'landed' in).

the first one refers to being IN terrain (as opposed to through terrain /units).
Doesn't matter (excepting, of course MCs and Vehicles) if the model is exposed, if "models whose bases are at least partially inside area terrain are in cover, regardless of the direction the shot is coming from..." (emph mine). so, by the 50% rule I was covered...if memory served correctly, and it was 3/3 in and out of the rocks....(and I don't have to take a DT test for something I gain no benefit from).

BUT (with regards to 'through' elements in area terrain OR a unit);

"if a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain....or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible...does not apply to shots that go over the area terrain or unit rather than through it..." (emph mine).

Going back to the page 16 definition, and the base NOT counting as part of the model, then the jetbikes (in this particular case) would not have received the bonus, as the bikes were wholly taller than the intervening wracks.




anybody have anything I missed with regards to this chain???

(and pardon me if this seems overly obvious to everyone, but carryovers from earlier editions/mindsets combined with sometimes differing play 'conventions' occasionally produce 'gray areas' in my understandings)


Last edited by Exitus Acta Probat on Sun May 22, 2011 11:40 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : clarity)
Back to top Go down
http://exitusactaprobat1.blogspot.com/
Warmonger

avatar

Posts : 1840
Join date : 2010-06-20
Age : 53
Location : Springfield

PostSubject: Re: Cover, LOS and Idiocy...   Mon May 23, 2011 7:22 pm

EAP wrote:

Quote :
so, by the 50% rule I was covered...if memory served correctly, and it was 3/3 in and out of the rocks.

agreed.

Quote :
....(and I don't have to take a DT test for something I gain no benefit from).

Not quite sure what you mean here? My understanding is regardless whether you recieve a benefit for cover or not any bikes moving thru, in or out of terrain must take a DT test. Not the whole unit just the bikes that are actually moving thru, or in and out.

_________________
Martial Law-Salute
Back to top Go down
Exitus Acta Probat

avatar

Posts : 1062
Join date : 2011-05-02
Age : 48
Location : Dayton, Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Cover, LOS and Idiocy...   Mon May 23, 2011 7:51 pm

The comment about DT tests was not directed at anyone.
It was me kind of working thru the paths.

IN area terrain, I get the benefits, through I do not...
If the caveat of being 'in' didn't exist, then landing in the terrain would prompt a test w/out benefits.
Back to top Go down
http://exitusactaprobat1.blogspot.com/
Warmonger

avatar

Posts : 1840
Join date : 2010-06-20
Age : 53
Location : Springfield

PostSubject: Re: Cover, LOS and Idiocy...   Tue May 24, 2011 8:35 pm

Roger that. Wink

_________________
Martial Law-Salute
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Cover, LOS and Idiocy...   

Back to top Go down
 
Cover, LOS and Idiocy...
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» He shall cover you with His feathers...
» Time Mag cover story: The Mindful Revolution
» Medibank Basic Hospital cover query
» Recommendations for Doctors on Bupa Cover
» I'm new and need help with private health cover...

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Martial Law :: 40k Articles and Editorials-
Jump to: