Hi again,

If a Techmarine is in cover and the Cannon is not both still get a cover save, right?

My argument would be that:

1) They form a unit and only 50% need to be in cover so a save can be claimed.

2) Vehicle squadrons use the rule from 1) so why should mixed units use something else.

3) That is how cover for a Hive Tyrant and Tyrant Guards is resolved (MCs use the same rules for cover as vehicles).

Any thoughts?

2. Darn good point, that actually assists a point I made in the other current thread

3.I think this is a bit messy/ not usefull. They are all the same,they are a retinue (I saw that argued against recently)

I think the tricky bit for me.. is when you roll for "am I hitting a vehicle or am I hitting a man"- is that a point (or after it)at which i am addressing cover..so once it has worked out I am shooting at a vehicle does it then use the 50% obscured rules over the "overly generous" mechanism.(does it break the flow substantially enough, does it matter if its another unit with a higher proportion of crew to guns)
artillery does say that it can't go to ground, but the techmarine can, thats a difference in cover save..don't know if that helps..is there anything about artillery split cover in any of the other newish codexs?(ork eldar)
I know a few other people say "50% takes precendence" is all important, that (+ the bit about vehicles being bulkyier 60/40 mass ratio or something(EDIT I know the rules talk only about models, they don't take into account a giant tag teaming with a dwarf but personally i would)?) would mean it wasn't the majority of the squad in cover if the techmarine had his hips covered by a bush and the giatn cannon was rested on the top of a hill.
I'm undecided..I shall sit on a rock near a waterfall for a while
(I built my thunderfire out of a tiny thudd gun so that issues like this were avoidable )

arnaroe wrote: Hi again,

If a Techmarine is in cover and the Cannon is not both still get a cover save, right?

My argument would be that:

1) They form a unit and only 50% need to be in cover so a save can be claimed.

Yes, they are an artillery unit and follows the cover rules for a unit.

arnaroe wrote:2) Vehicle squadrons use the rule from 1) so why should mixed units use something else.

They do, but you have to use the cover rules for vehicles for each models in the squadron first to determine how many vehicles are in cover.

arnaroe wrote:3) That is how cover for a Hive Tyrant and Tyrant Guards is resolved (MCs use the same rules for cover as vehicles).

Any thoughts?

HT and guards cover was beat to death once as KMB said. It is yet another 'semi resloved' issue awaiting a GW FAQ (don't hold your breath! )

TW

Thanks for the replies. I just needed a second opinion before I started claiming 4+ cover saves for my Thunderfire Cannon (devastating gun, I strongly recommend it).

As for the Tyrant+Guards bit I will just leave the lid on that can of worms for now.

Thanks!

I would say yes, the Techmarine being "in cover" is enough for the whole unit to get a Cover Save (just like any other 2 model unit) - assuming of course no other ICs are present (if a Librarian joined the unit for example, then you would need 2 models "in cover" in order for the unit to get a Cover Save).

the Gun model needs to be 50+% obscured from view in order for it to count towards the number of models that are "in cover", but the Techmarine need only be 'partially obscured'.

thats my take on it.

~ Tim
p.s. i thought Tyrant + Guards had been resolved? (its easy IMO)
p.p.s. dont forget that if you are running a Thunderfire then it appears the unit is a Retinue, and therefore worth 1 KP for the Gun Model and 1 KP for the IC (Techmarine). also remember that Artillery cannot move on upper floors of Ruins.

That retinue thing is still a bit of a strange one.I'm still trying to work out GAP seems split 50/50 on whether its heresy or obvious.But I'm still reading all the threads its argued over..
Tim, I'm trying to find a few examples to further modify my giant and dwarf scenario but its tricky in 5th.. and I'm not familiar with the codexs that do this, but by your reading would you say a farseer in cover joined to a wraithlord gives the wraithlord a cover save (apologies if that isn't allowed) or a tombspider with a scarab base behind a bush.(genuine question not trap like )

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:p.s. i thought Tyrant + Guards had been resolved? .

really where did GW clarify it.At what stage had universal resolution been reached (link?) or is it just that your mind is now fixed on the subject.(I'm still chewing over all the still emerging salient points ) But we also refuse to obey half the MC cover rules that you lot subscribe to..in game, so I can't talk

killmaimburn wrote:by your reading would you say a farseer in cover joined to a wraithlord gives the wraithlord a cover save (apologies if that isn't allowed) or a tombspider with a scarab base behind a bush.(genuine question not trap like )

yes, to both.
(although a Wraithlord is a unit always fielded as 1 model, so cant be joined by an IC in 5th)

the process of checking whether or not the unit gets a Cover Save doesnt change, just whether or not individual models as being "in cover" - all you do is work out whether at least half the total number of models in the unit is "in cover" or not (for MCs/Vehicles this means 50+% obscured, for everyone else it means partially obscured + the exceptions like shooting through a gap etc).

killmaimburn wrote:really where did GW clarify it.At what stage had universal resolution been reached (link?) or is it just that your mind is now fixed on the subject.

right answer = right answer - doesnt matter whether everyone else in the world has caught up yet.
(1 Tyrant + 1 Guard: Guard is partially obscured, Tyrant is not 50+% obscured = half the unit is "in Cover" = the whole unit gets a Cover save - surely thats simple enough?)

now, working out the right answer and getting the masses to accept it as such are different things, of course (remember 4th ed Cover/LOS?! ).

cheers

~ Tim

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:yes, to both.

I do think some kind of 'shoot the big uns'/ proportionality should be put into this to temper it.
Can folks think of some really good reasons why it shouldn't.
As both Tim and I have said it refers to models only, but if we're using the distinction of 50% in a unit (with majority) and or 50% of a model(but not the model that actually is the MC/vehicle to which that rule applies)..I'm still tempted to kind of houserule to tie them together so that (total hypothetical made up) a defiler joined by a nurgling (for size only) the 90% mass of the defiler should count as the majority and not 50% of unit. If not would this just in most table situations be handled by the -1 to cover (anti argument mechanism?)

(BTW no one has addressed the whole appointing shots to components of atillery does it cause a seperation point i raised..if I was just being nuts do say )

Tim in your setup if the techmarine confers a save (through unit rules) to the vehicle, how does that mesh with it not being able to go to ground (/ confer the beneifit of infantry cover mechanisms?)

killmaimburn wrote:I do think some kind of 'shoot the big uns'/ proportionality should be put into this to temper it.
Can folks think of some really good reasons why it shouldn't.

its too complicated for 5th ed (or 3rd/4th for that matter)- remember, these days it is all about streamling.

it would affect Maj T too... and why shouldnt the bigger model take a bigger proportion of the incoming hits? (see where this could lead)

they even got rid of the whole "counts as 10 models" in combat thing.

the disadvantage in situations such as you described is that the smaller model becomes an easier target as part of the bigger unit (hiding a Nurgling is easy, hiding a Defiler is not).

killmaimburn wrote:(BTW no one has addressed the whole appointing shots to components of atillery does it cause a seperation point i raised..if I was just being nuts do say )

it doesnt say to treat the Guns and Crew as separate units from that point onwards, so we dont.

killmaimburn wrote:Tim in your setup if the techmarine confers a save (through unit rules) to the vehicle, how does that mesh with it not being able to go to ground (/ confer the beneifit of infantry cover mechanisms?)

the unit can GTG - its just that the Gun Model does not get the bonus (the Techmarine will).

~ Tim

I think more of an abuse of this would be to have a devastator squad with all the Heavy Weapons standing in the open so giving them good LOS while the rest of the squad sit in cover.

More than 50% of the squad is in cover and active as ablative wounds to the 4 heavy weapons standing in the open.

Ooookkkkk

PaddyF wrote:I think more of an abuse of this would be to have a devastator squad with all the Heavy Weapons standing in the open so giving them good LOS while the rest of the squad sit in cover.

is that sarcasm? (because that is exactly how it works in 5th ed)

~ Tim

meh, you take wounds on the ablatives, removes the cover.then you have to move losing a turn of shooting..Its not a monsterous creature getting a cover save because it just did a big dump behind a bush and walked straight into a demolisher cannon.

killmaimburn wrote:meh, you take wounds on the ablatives, removes the cover.then you have to move losing a turn of shooting..

dont forget that in a 'standard' Dev Squad (Sgt, 4 Heavies, 5 Bolter Marines) you need to lose 2 ablative wounds (not counting stacking on the Sgt) before it tips the balance and prevents the unit getting cover.

Although this does work better with things like Imperial Guard Infantry Squads, since the ratio of Heavies to Ablatives is less (allowing you to take many more wounds before having to move to restore cover).

in the case of the Thundefire, having the Techmaring in cover and the gun in the open means that he still gets the save after the Gun is destroyed.

dont forget that in 4th ed Artillery Gun Models couldnt get Cover Saves (nor could other Vehicles), but they could grant Cover Saves to their own crew!

~ Tim

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:it doesnt say to treat the Guns and Crew as separate units from that point onwards, so we dont.

But we roll to penetrate and we roll to wound (even if we're just using seperate coloured dice we have hit a divergance of sorts)..I kind of get stuck here.. yes firing melta you would also use a different coloured dice.. but you are using an entirely different table and rule set.

You lot were so insistent that even if a gun was firing through 4 clumps of area terrain, (between abstract woods, represented by trees on perimeters) that no save be allowed.. making MCs and vehicles almost never have a save.. and now you say that actually they just need a rat following their every move to always recieve one..That doesn't sound simple its sounds mish mashy(and thats a technical clinically proven observation through double blind studies done of the general public available).

Anyone taking the 230 pt non scoring walk on infantry, low H weapon count, of failing to ablate through 5th ed could bend rules with me..I cast "pity" +2 to my generosity statistic

killmaimburn wrote:But we roll to penetrate and we roll to wound (even if we're just using seperate coloured dice we have hit a divergance of sorts)..I kind of get stuck here.. yes firing melta you would also use a different coloured dice.. but you are using an entirely different table and rule set.

but we still treat them as parts of the same unit (just like a squad might have one group that rolls Inv Saves and one that rolls Armour Saves, or one group that has Multi-wounds and one that doesnt).

Cover Saves are for the unit, and apply to the whole unit - so since we still treat them as a single unit, they all get a Cover Save if any of them do.

killmaimburn wrote:That doesn't sound simple its sounds mish mashy

Artillery is mish-mashy.

~ Tim