Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I was watching some friends play tonight and a cover save question came up. Here's the situation:
Squad of 10 banshees is shot at by a star cannon. 5 banshees are in LOS, the other 5 arent. 3 of the 5 visible are in cover. Now, the rule states that if the majority of models in the unit are in cover, the unit gets the cover save, if they arent, then nobody in the unit gets it.
The owner of the banshees argues that since only 5 were visible, and 3 of those 5 were in cover that counted as the majority, thus, they get the cover save. My feeling is that the rule states the majority of the unit must be in cover, doesnt say a word about LOS.
What do you think?
I think that what he is saying makes alot of sense -- but I also think that by the rules, you are correct. AFAIK, line of sight is only relevant when it comes to removing casualties. Majority toughness, the mixed armour rules, and indeed cover are all dealt with using all models in the unit.
Why do the survivors remain anonymous -- as if cursed -- while the dead are revered? Why do we cling to what we lose while we ignore what we still hold?
Name none of the fallen, for they stood in our place, and stand there still in each moment of our lives.
--Duiker, "Deadhouse Gates"
I also agree with you. The rules specificly say unit. Nothing about LOS.
Member of the United States Army (45B)
Hmm. Here's something to think about.
"Sometimes a unit will be partially in cover. If there are more models that can be hit in cover than there are outside it, then the unit may make cover saves for the entire unit."
That's a direct quote from the rulebook (Pg. 25 of the Macragge booklet) on cover saves. Now, while it doesn't come right out in the open and say definitively yes or no, I'm reading that to mean you only consider the models that could potentially be hit. After all, if anything it's kinda crazy to assume that things that cannot possibly take hits in the first place should count as being vulnerable, right?
@LordCreampuff: Unless I missed a memo somewhere, the little Macragge booklet is exactly the same as the 4th edition BGB. It's the big book with all the fluff and extras cut away, leaving just the core rules. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but AFAIK they're the same.
The Macragge rulebook is outdated by the 4th edition BGB. Use the new rules.
I agree with the above posts. LOS to models within a unit only comes into play when removing casualties.
I do not criticize. I do not offend. All I offer is my opinion which means only as much as you make it.
Ahhh....I just went back and reread the rule. the line that says "That can be hit" is making me start to think that he might have been right. It's written the same way in both Mcragge and BBB.
Last edited by Jakel; January 15th, 2006 at 19:39.
I personally would take it a a whole unit, regardless of LOS.
It keeps things (slightly) simpler and doesn't start arguments about precise LOS in relation to cover.
i would say yea they should get a cover save, just commonsense wise they should, it makes sense. I mean the majorety of the unit u can see is in cover so they should all get it, thats how we play it.
“Krump first, assk qweztions neva'!"- 3000 Orks
Dark Eldar- 1500 1/0/0
"the very gods for vengeance cry”- 3000 Dwarves
I would grant them the cover save.
Another factor to allow for is the fact that you did not have LoS to half of the unit so presumably those models are also being afforded some cover.
Okay... so now I'm slightly confused...
We had always played that if you could see (for example) 4 out of ten, and the rest were behind blocking terrain, that unit could be fired on but only receive 4 casualties, and likewise only those four chould shoot back.
I had always assumed this was something we did to make it more realistic, but from what you guys are saying it seems this was actually the correct way of playing?