Ulthuan

Ulthuan, Home of the Asur
It is currently Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:44 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 9:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 698
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Okay, a friend and I are arguing to the point of exhaustion. I wholly believe I am right, but obviously he has his own opinion about this, so I'm leaving this to you, the community.

First the rules (all on page 41 of the BRB):

1. COVER: If the majority of the models in the target unit (or, when firing against a single model, more than half of the target model) is obscured from the shooting model's view by other models (friend or enemy) or by terrain then an additional To Hit modifier is applied.

2. Target Behind Hard Cover: We also count intervening units as hard cover (if they obscure the line of sight to the majority of the target, of course) as their presence will play havoc with the shooters' accuracy. If the majority of a unit is obscured by such 'hard' terrain, it is said to be Hard Cover.

In the example photo:

3. The Giant (2) is more than half hidden by the building, so shots against it would suffer from a -2 penalty for hard cover.

4. Similarly, the Knights (3) would benefit from the -2 penalty for hard cover - which is the Swordsmen in this case.

"Majority" is defined as "more than half". So for argument's sake, let's just say "Majority" = 51% or more.

Situation: There is a unit of, say, 7 models. So for hard cover from an intervening unit:

Wisetiger's Requirements: 51% or more of the 7 models needs to be obscured regardless if 4 are 100% obscured and the other three aren't or 51% of each of the 7 models are obscured. The total 3 dimensional "footprint", if you will, of the target unit needs to be obscured from line of sight of the shooting model.

My friend (let's call him Assface, for this example, ya know, for anonymity's sake).

Assface's Requirements: As long as the majority of the models are at least 51% obscured, the unit gains cover. An example he gives would be if 4 of the 7 models were 85% obscured, and the rest weren't, that unit would get cover.

If we apply Wisetiger's examples to the situation of the 7 models, that being 51% of the unit (in whichever combination of concealment), then that unit meets the requirements set forth by Wisetiger (obviously).

It also meets the requirements for cover set forth by Assface.

Now if we apply Assface's example to the situation of the 7 models, that being 4/7 models are 85% obscured, and the rest aren't, then that unit meets the requirements set forth by Assface.

However, it does not meet the requirements set forth by Wisetiger. 4 of 7 models is 57%. If only 85% of those were obscured, only 48% of the target unit would be obscured. Wisetiger's requirement is 51% or more, or what is considered 'majority'.

Obviously, this is dependent upon the accuracy of the naked eye, of "line of sight" and stooping down to your model's eye level, etc. Now, I tend to be a friendly player with good sportsmanship. So If I see a unit and it 'seems' to be half covered or more, I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt and grant it cover.

But for argument's sake, I believe that the "majority of the target", as stated in #2 above, means 51% or more of the target, period. And that technically, 48% of the unit is not 51%.

I believe that you should play by the ruling that breaks the fewest rules.

In Wisetiger's examples, the unit meets both Wisetiger's Requirements and Assface's Requirements, and thus achieves cover in both cases.

In Assface's example, the unit only meets Assface's Requirements, and does not meet Wisetiger's Requirements for cover.

Therefore, I believe I am right. And Assface is an assface.

Please discuss.

PS. I did read up on other threads about this, like http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=38941&hilit=shooting+cover+intervening+units, but wanted to start a new thread instead of bring that one back from the dead.

_________________
thelordcal wrote:
Or he uses his big a$$ banner pole as a great weapon...
wisetiger7 wrote:
That's what she said.
Asurion Whitestar wrote:
I would normally delete such an off topic post, but this is just too good. Classic..!! :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 1:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 1:36 am
Posts: 2
For simplicity sake you can all put a name with assface, it is Rivvin. Nice to meet you. I will explain my view with less insulting (and childish) terms and just try to explain my confusion and interpretation of the rules. (Also, I have asked this on two other boards and had conflicting responses so I feel the answer is not clear to more people than just me)

My interpretation of wisetigers rule #1 per the rulebook. The majority of the models need to have cover. Not 51% of the surface area of the models. Not 51% of the frontage of the unit. (neither of these terms nor a percentage is ever used) Just the majority of the models as it clearly states.

Rule #2 explains how intervening units apply to the base rules of cover presented in rule #1. To me is saying that if all of the conditions of rule #1 are met with an intervening unit than it counts as hard cover. They use the term majority of the target to define this. It is unclear what they mean by majority of the target. The target is clearly the unit that you are shooting at. Do they mean 51% of the frontage? 51% of the surface area of the models? Or majority of the models in the unit? ( If you tell me the majority of my friends got sunburned after a day at the lake, I don’t start looking over the area of their skin. I count how many of my friends got burned.) Since this is unclear I default to the original rules on cover (Presented in rule #1) which says majority of **models** in the unit.

The picture in the BRB in my opinion help support this. In my opinion the 4/5 of the knights are about 50% covered by the intervening models. So the majority of the **models** are obscured and it clearly state they are under hard cover. In order for wisetigers interpretation to be true 63% of the four knights would have to be covered to exceed 50% of the total unit. (Which I do not think is the case, as well as others on the other two boards)

So the example he referenced is shown below. Four of seven ogres are blocked by rocks (or another unit). 4/7 of the unit of ogres are 85% blocked. Do they get cover?

http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/Sekhe ... p.png.html

To me this is what the first rule is saying. 4/7 are obscured so you get cover. But in wisetiger’s opinion there is no cover as only 48.5% is blocked.

I am not looking for a loophole or to cause disagreement. I respect wisetiger as a player and think his view could be valid but I am not sure. I just want to know how to play a game I love. Thanks for your help.

P.S. The argument about breaking fewest rules is pointless. In the example given (4/7 of ogres) my interpretation does not break rule #1 as the majority of the models in the unit are obscured and hence have cover. You would not grant them cover, even though the majority of models are obscured, hence breaking rule #1. So both interpretations break one rule. Hence the confusion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 6:40 am 
Offline
Auctor Aeternitatum
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 7136
Location: The city of Spires
Hi Rivvin, welcome to the forum.

Given GW vagueness when writing rules it's not clear either way. From what I read it depends on how you interpret the phrase "If the majority of the models in the target unit is obscured from the shooting model's view".

You can take "the majority of the models" to mean that more then 50% of the models need to be obscured.

If you read "the majority of the models in the target unit" then it's more then 50% of the unit needs to be obscured.

Perhaps a good question to ask is if it actually matters, realistically speaking. Given that you need to work with what the model shooting can see, how do you define the difference between 48% and 51%? In effect for an infantry unit 5 wide (so 5 * 20mm * 35 mm) that 3% difference are less then 1 cm^2. There is no way you can see the difference clearly enough to actually say anything useful about it. You need some pretty damn accurate measurements to make out that difference when going from the eyeview of a model...

Rod

_________________
Eirik wrote:
Please try to remember that, no matter how 'official' the source seems, rumours are basically just a dictionary combined with a random number generator

For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:19 pm
Posts: 800
Location: San Diego, CA
I agree with Rod. Generally the rule tends to work most of the time without any issues. Certain situations, given the vagueness of the rules, lead to disputes. The majority of the time the intervening unit rule comes into play there really isn't much dispute - for example Elves tend to be the same size, so if an intervening unit of Shadow Warriors in front of a unit of Swordmasters will very likely obscure most of the Swordmasters. For simplicity's sake most people use the interpretation if the majority of the base of the model/unit is behind an intervening unit then the hard cover is granted.

Obviously it gets much more difficult to interpret as you get closer to crossing the line where you could have a "majority" of the model/unit obscured while not really having the majority obscured.

In the specific example above in the picture, I would grant the hard cover. Rocks the size of Ogres or other Ogres would grant hard cover I would think, even with 3 hanging out without cover. However, having started hanging over at the Stronghold as I've painted my Ogres, I know some believe that you can use Gnoblars as a screen to grant hard cover. That I don't think would fly and as you get down to covering less of the 4 obscured models in the picture - it's harder to argue for hard cover based on intervening terrain or units. If the example was 60% vs 85% than I would be far more conflicted.

GW's line of sight rules are awful anyways. If there are three unobscured Ogres I'd be shooting at the three unobscured Ogres and not just shoot towards the unit hoping for the best... But whatever, these are models being pushed around a table top. ;p

In the end I hope you both just rolled it off.

_________________
My Plog - Tele's Torpid Painting Log


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 1:36 am
Posts: 2
I agree with both of you. I admitted the whole time it could be interpreted either way but was accused by wisetiger of trying to “make a mountain of a mole hill” and trying to “find a loop hole”. I like the majority of the models rule because it allows for the easy quick friendly gaming without telling the difference between 48% and 51%. The argument to me was more fueled by the fact that wisetiger maintains there is no other way to interpret the rules which is frustrating to me.

I also suggested the “Don’t be a D*ck rule”. Like you both said 99% of the time the two interpretations align. In the situation with the 4/7 ogres just don’t be a d*ck. Anyone who plays warhammer looks at them and naturally thinks they get cover. No one (I hope) tries to calculate the percentage of the surface area of the model that are covered. Go with your gut, grant the hard cover, and don’t be a D*ck.

This situation has never actually arisen between the two of us. It came up with another friend of mine and I told he could choose if he thought there was cover while I grabbed him another beer. (We settled on light cover even though the rules say hard or nothing. That way we both won.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 3:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 698
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
I would like to think, at least for us non-douchey players, the "Don't be a d*ck rule" is a given. And all the times I've played Rivvin, we've never had an issue that we got hung up on. I don't think either of us care that much about winning to argue about something like this in a game. We both just want to play the best game we can and have fun. And I think, for the most part, that has been our experience. But we do love to debate about rules. :P What else is there to do when I'm at work and he's in class? :lol:

The reason I find a problem, logically, with his interpretation of the cover rule is this:
Taking the example of 4/7 ogres being obscured by 85% each, and the rest having a clear view... where do we draw the line? Yes, 48% is so darn close to 51% that, like I said above, I would give them the benefit of the doubt, and give them hard cover anyway, again, because it can be truly difficult to determine, with the naked eye, the exact majority. BUT. What if 4/7 ogres were only obscured 84% each? Would you still grant them cover? What about 83% each? 82%? Where is the line drawn in the interpretation?

Is the line drawn at 51% of the 4/7? Because if that is the case, the actuality of the situation is only 29% of the unit obscured, and that just can't be right.

This is why it MUST be viewed as the target as a whole, and not cover given to it's individual parts, whether it be a unit composed of multiple models or a lone model by itself; 51% of the target unit as a whole must be obscured for hard cover.

I agree that GW has a horrible vagueness when it comes to rules. It's for that reason that a huge part of me is attracted to other game systems that evolve and get FAQ'd, and have constant support. But alas, there isn't really another game system out there for mass ranked fantasy army tactics. #-o

P.S. The argument about breaking fewest rules is NOT pointless. My example of the majority of the unit as a whole meets the requirements for cover in both my interpretation of the rule and your interpretation. But your example does NOT meet the majority (48%) of the unit as a whole requirement of my interpretation.

P.P.S. The reason I keep saying Rivvin is making mountain's out of molehills is because his interpretation is overthought. By wondering if GW meant 51% of the frontage or 51% of the surface area... It's all moot. The point of your friends being sunburned is not relative. Now, if all those friends were to be examined by a dermatologist, and the doctor said s/he would only examine groups of people who had the majority of their bodies sunburned, then yes, maybe it would be relative. Regardless, as in the post script above, I believe my way is much simpler and cleaner, and assumes much less, because, as we all know, GW obviously doesn't think that fine of detail when it comes to their rule. =P~

_________________
thelordcal wrote:
Or he uses his big a$$ banner pole as a great weapon...
wisetiger7 wrote:
That's what she said.
Asurion Whitestar wrote:
I would normally delete such an off topic post, but this is just too good. Classic..!! :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 6:54 am 
Offline
The White Star Captain

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:16 pm
Posts: 2814
Location: Cothique (QLD)
This is a tough one after re examining the rules. Until I realised that Wisetiger is putting too much emphasis on the 'obscured'.
The meaning of obscure is in itself, depending how you read it 'obscure'.
To me and everyone else I've met, cover from units is giving even if the unit/models covering the unit are of lesser size, as long as they cover the majority of the model/s they are in the path of. Meaning not the percentage of coverage, per model. But the cover itself, covering more than half of the model, as is with cover.

Let's have an example:
A unit of 10 Anything is behind a fence/wall/unit/anything, for clarity 5 models are completely behind the object/s and a 6th is more than half behind the object/s, only 1/4 of the base is visible in the open.

As you see it:
This fence/wall/unit, isn't treated as cover until it covers 51% of the models you can see.
So let's say the object is a fence or wall, otherwise known as an obstacle. It specifically reminds you that it grants cover. Now, in your interpretation Wisetiger, the Los and Cover rules are solely dependant upon the actual models and terrain pieces used.

So with the example above; the wall is short and only reaches up to the models waist, so around only 50% of the models behind the wall are obscured.
Therefore being less than 50% of the models as you can see the top half of their bodies behind the wall. Therefore not getting cover.

Now, if the whole unit was behind this wall but the wall only covers 50%, not more. They don't get cover.

Edit: another good example:
The garden of Moor fences, very open as it is with gothic style fences.
The whole unit is behind the wall and the wall is taller than them, but because it is open it doesn't actually cover enough of the needed area on the models, therefore doesn't get cover?

For even more clarity within this example, the unit behind the wall is cavalry and the wall covers up to the horses belly-height, covering 40% of the height of the model, but because the only thing being obscured is the legs, the actual percentage would be much lower, as it's empty space.
So even though they are behind the wall/object that grants cover, not enough of the models are covered to actual gain cover?

Or say the wall was higher still at 60% of the height of the models, but because of the actual model's % of cover is less than 50%, they don't get cover?

Naturally you shoot with no modifiers when a unit is behind Skirmishers.?
I just imagine that to be a whole other thing, because the unit shooting through such a formation clearly has enough models to see or track Los to an uncovered model in the unit therefore not have any mods for cover.
Or the same I imagine with a unit of flyers that are on flying bases, or a dragon in front of infantry, where none if only slightly obscured because of flying stands or scenery on the base/s.

Don't get me wrong here I'm not poking you Wisetiger, I'm trying to put it into different circumstances where the same interpretation of the rule is flawed majorly, as to better show you how this can not possibly be the correct interpretation of the rule. If it is, suddenly the age of recommended players went up.

I would very much like to get your answers or responses to the examples above. :3

_________________
Sincerely,
Kitlith

Image

Head of the Ninth Age 'High' Elves of Light Army Support.

The Mighty Pen (App) Link coming soon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:50 pm
Posts: 288
Location: Sun Diego, SoCal, USA
wisetiger7 wrote:
The reason I find a problem, logically, with his interpretation of the cover rule is this:
Taking the example of 4/7 ogres being obscured by 85% each, and the rest having a clear view... where do we draw the line? Yes, 48% is so darn close to 51% that, like I said above, I would give them the benefit of the doubt, and give them hard cover anyway, again, because it can be truly difficult to determine, with the naked eye, the exact majority. BUT. What if 4/7 ogres were only obscured 84% each? Would you still grant them cover? What about 83% each? 82%? Where is the line drawn in the interpretation?


IMO ... if you're busting out calculators to figure out the exact % of a model that is concealed/obscured, you're missing out on the spirit of the game.

Example:
You have 10 soldiers in a squad. 3 are hunkered down behind a wall, completely blocked from sight. 6 are hiding behind the wall, but have their heads and 1 arm (each) exposed so that they can shoot (and see what they're shooting), and then you have Private Doofus out tapdancing in the open, you wouldn't calculate how much of the squad is exposed (18% of each soldier x 6 and 100% x1 going by the rule of 9s) ... you would say 'there's a squad in cover behind that wall.'

http://www.medcalc.com/body.html has the actual calculations used for determining body surface area, and I am highly doubtful that anyone in a combat situation is going to start plugging it in to determine if the soldier standing behind a waist-high wall is 51% or 48% obscured ... they're going to figure "well, half of him is covered."

Going by all of that, if you have a unit, hunker down and look at it. If you can reasonably discern that "half the unit" is obscured, call it cover. Otherwise, roll a die, flip a coin, or Rochambeau for it.

_________________
PLOG here!
High Elf, done/in progress/unassembled: 12/150/1
Wood Elf, done/in progress/unassembled: 18/2/43
Space Orks, done/in progress/unassembled: Oi.
WH40K Imperials (BT/SoB/SW), done/in progress/unassembled: Oi.

Prepare for a surprise attack!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 698
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
@Asurion Whitestar: I'll try to clear things up as much as possible for you.

If you are shooting through a chain-linked fence as opposed to a rock wall of the same height, yes, there is going to be a difference of visibility to the target apart from the difference between soft and hard cover. That difference is made by the true line of sight rule, and should be accounted for via visual majority when considering cover.

The first thing(s) to put aside here in your examples, are the references to fences, walls, other obstacles, etc. This situation is specific to intervening units. The reason it is, is because the rules for fences and such is flawed, plain and simple. (Don't get me started on buildings!) It makes no sense that if I am shooting from 30" at your unit that is up against a rock wall as opposed to that same target unit being a mere inch away from the wall would make it that different of a shooting situation. What constitutes as true line of sight through a fence, and having a different rule if they are right up against that fence boggles my mind, logically, though I see the need for the rule. It is what it is.

The reason I bring up the intervening unit, is because that is where things get fuzzy (supposedly). That is where the additional point (#2 above in the OP) comes into play.

So, looking at your examples, I'll see if I can cover my opinion of them.

The first example will need a bit more clarification. I don't believe that cover comes from blocking line of sight to the base of the model. So when you say "only 1/4 of the base is visible in the open", it says nothing of the rest of the model.

The second example is "This... unit isn't treated as cover until it covers 51% of the models you can see". (Note: I took out fence/wall for this example, for the reasons stated above). Yes, I believe that the intervening unit must block the majority of line of sight to the target, whether that target be a lone model or a unit composed of multiple models. It would be silly that a line of 10 giant rats give cover to a unit of 3 demigryphs directly behind it.

I would also like to reiterate my opinion of obstacles and their rules here, since you did bring up fences/walls. I have broken it up into two parts for easier reference.

OBSTACLES AS COVER: (A) "If a firer is shooting at a model that is behind an obstacle and in base contact with it, the target model counts as in cover... regardless of how much of it is visible above the obstacle. We assume that the warrior takes shelter behind the obstacle. (B) When firing against a unit, the majority of its models must be behind the obstacle in order to benefit from this additional protection."

In A, I find it interesting that it specifically notes that "regardless of how much of it is visible above the obstacle". It makes an indirect reference to when the model is NOT in base contact with it. That means you should use true line of sight to the model. If you can see the majority of the model either through or over whatever intervening unit/terrain, and it is not up against it to benefit from the cover afforded by the obstacle, then you should not have to take cover penalties when taking the shot.

In B, I also find it interesting that in this specific instance it states that the majority of the models must be behind the obstacle. Take that for what you will.

Now when you aren't taking into account the Obstacles as Cover rule (both A and B parts) - as in, the unit is not directly up against the obstacle - then the aforementioned rules in the OP take into effect. This means true line of sight to the majority of the unit. You don't get benefits of the Obstacles as Cover rule when they aren't up against it, so that point is moot.

Remember, this debate is about intervening units, NOT obstacles or terrain, as they give additional cover rules.

On skirmishers, why would there be no modifiers if you're shooting through skirmishers? If they block line of sight, they block line of sight. There's no rule (that I know of) that specifically states no modifiers when shooting through an intervening skirmisher unit. Sure, you can homebrew it that way, and to some degree it makes logical sense. But otherwise, they should block line of sight just as much as any other unit blocks line of sight. Obviously there will be more openings to see through the unit, so it will be harder to get cover from an intervening skirmisher unit, but it is still possible, say if the skirmisher unit were at an angle so as to not be able to see down the half inch gaps clearly, etc.

I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from. Great talking points AW!

@Duranthalis: While your example is losing sight of what this discussion is about (again, this is about intervening units, NOT walls), your other points about the spirit of the game, and your final point of hunkering down and reasonably discerning that half the unit is obscured, this is exactly the point I'm trying to get across, and I totally agree with you. I think it is simply confusing the issue when adding all these additional points, percentages upon percentages, when determining cover, especially when the book doesn't say anything about percentages upon percentages. If the majority of the models in a target unit are obscured, the unit gets cover.

The issue, as my opponent brings up are twofold. What does majority mean? What does obscured mean? To me, they are simple, clear terms. Majority is anything over half. Obscured means hidden. Once you get into "how much of each model has to be obscured for it to count as being obscured", and all that simplicity goes out the window.

_________________
thelordcal wrote:
Or he uses his big a$$ banner pole as a great weapon...
wisetiger7 wrote:
That's what she said.
Asurion Whitestar wrote:
I would normally delete such an off topic post, but this is just too good. Classic..!! :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group