Vehicles/Titans in cover - 25% of height or of area/mass ?

[Phototoxin]

So I was at a super heavy tournament last weekend. My last game was against an eldar player (beautifully painted orange and grey) who had a revanant titan. My autocannon havoks opened up on it. He claimed cover from ruins (+2 from shrouded.. = 2+ cover o.O) despite the fact that my havoks could clearly see it from the knees up. He claimed this meant it was 25% in cover. However to my mind just because it has tall legs behind cover doesn't mean that it should get cover... The rules say 25% - height wise this is right since the thing is so tall and spindly, but mass wise its more like 15% as most of its body/head is compact at the top.

Anyone have any thoughts/ideas on this?

[Denzark]

I don't think you can account for mass, because the how would you account for actual perceived mass of a 24" high model, versus the actual mass of the simulated unit?. And it wouldn't be still in 'real life' - it would be striding about, so it is more important, and the only way to be sure with super heavies, is presumably to go for height. I think this demonstrates why it is important to discuss cover and exactly what it does, before the game starts.

[Nabterayl]

I agree with Denzark. It's asking for insanity to cut out white space from the 25% determination.

The actual scenario you present doesn't offend me intuitively. You can only see a Predator-like shimmer in the air to begin with, and the titan is able to get almost its entire bulk behind the cover by crouching. Still an abstraction, but it works for me.

[sangrail777]

Gotta agre with Denzark and Nabterayl. Besides, you'd have to show me in which rule book when talking about cover does it ever talk about mass.

[Wildcard]

Equal question (that our group has come against quite a few times) is the one with space marine dreadnought. Does a cover that is high enough to cover its legs, but not a spot on its torso, grant the cover save? Its that 25% from the height easily, but not by area by far. And the height of the cover in question would give that cover easily to a much less agile predator / rhino chassis.

[Nabterayl]

I'd say yes, for the same reason as before. Cover is dependent upon the point of view of the shooter. That means that you cannot simply take a full frontal photo of every complex silhouette in your gaming group, work out the actual area of the silhouette, and figure out what 25% looks like, ignoring the various white space. That would be burdensome enough, but you would have to do that for every angle that a shooter could possibly have on every complex silhouette in your gaming group.

The rulebook never defines how we are to determine 25%. The approach above is undoubtedly the most conservative one. I think most people agree to use height not because it has more support than area from the rules (it doesn't), but because using area leads to insanity.

But note - the rules do not say that height is better than area, nor that area is better than height. If both players want to use area, they're playing by the rules just as much as if both players want to use height. The key take-home point is to ask your opponent up front and agree on the methodology you will use.

[Eberk]

This is one of those things that seems (gut-feeling) so wrong... but has to be written in rules that are simple enough to make the game progress smoothly.


So 25% of the size is 25% of the size of the model.

[Denzark]

I plop a Defiler behind a Aegis line for cover saves. I have measured the height of the line, which covers more than 25% to the tip of his head. I should mention that he is not modelled for advantage. There is not a chance that 25% of MASS is covered, ie hull and turret.

But then the defiler legs are jointed in such a way that it could stoop its hull down lower than the line. I think height is the only way to go if you are drawing a horizontal line across the line of sight to the model.

[OrksOrksOrks]

Thinking of it in height is stupid, the rules never say height and the examples in the rule book don't use height, its if 25% of the otherwise visible area of the model is obscurred, so I probably agree with the Phototoxin, its not hard to work out, and really, the feet of a huge titan being obscurred aren't going to realistically affect the guy in a tank shooting at it, and as for figuring out the "white space" to ignore, thats really not very dificult for anyone to work out, you can see at a glace that the spindly shins of an Eldar Titan shouldn't offer it a cover save

[DrLove42]

I'm with the OP and Orksx3 here (seeing as i was at said comp)

Heres a perespective picture, with a revenant tian pic i stole off google. The red box represents "cover".

As several people have said the cover is 25% of the models height, but no where near its mass/area.

Are you suggestingt hat this model would get a cover save from the red box ruin in this situation?

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/drlove42/Titan_zps9370d96a.png

[Eberk]

Are you suggestingt hat this model would get a cover save from the red box ruin in this situation?

If that red box is 25% of the height of the model (measured to the top of his head not that wing) then yes, cover save.

although I think the rules for cover for superheavy vehicles/titans should be changed, they are so big 25% hidden is just not enough to grant a cover save

[Denzark]

If that red box is 25% of the height of the model (measured to the top of his head not that wing) then yes, cover save.

although I think the rules for cover for superheavy vehicles/titans should be changed, they are so big 25% hidden is just not enough to grant a cover save

I agree on both counts FWIW.

[Phototoxin]

The TO agreed with me - and aside from 1 squad of havoks it was in cover the rest of the time (until my blight drone zoomed up its bottom!) but I was wondering if there was a consensus.

I think another part of the issue is that D weapons ignore cover so hiding superheavies is a good idea as even if you cannot 100% see your enemy they won't get cover saves.

[Sly]

Rulebook says 25% obscured. It doesn't say 25% of its height. That means that 25% of the facing that you are shooting at needs to be hidden. So a top-heavy unit like a Defiler would need more than having its legs from the knees down hidden behind an Aegis line.

Playing 25% height is not correct according to the rulebook. But I can see why people would play it and then make justifications as if it's "right", because while it's not right, it is unarguably simpler to measure. Sometimes in a friendly game, it's better to go with a cleaner and faster determination than try to figure out exactly how much of a model's front area is hidden from the point of view of each unit shooting at it.

[Eberk]

Rulebook says 25% obscured. It doesn't say 25% of its height. That means that 25% of the facing that you are shooting at needs to be hidden. So a top-heavy unit like a Defiler would need more than having its legs from the knees down hidden behind an Aegis line.

Playing 25% height is not correct according to the rulebook. But I can see why people would play it and then make justifications as if it's "right", because while it's not right, it is unarguably simpler to measure. Sometimes in a friendly game, it's better to go with a cleaner and faster determination than try to figure out exactly how much of a model's front area is hidden from the point of view of each unit shooting at it.

Harsh... very harsh...

the rulebook doesn't say 25% of the heigth but it also doesn't say 25% of the mass, so it is anybody's guess what to use. So you also don't have clear facts, you just "feel" that it should be like you say.


So, according to me there are 2 choices we have:

1) 25% of the height. Same rule for all the models whether they are Eldar Titans (top-heavy) or Ork Gargants (bottom-heavy), whether they are sleek (Eldar) or bulky (Ork, Imperium). Simply measure the height and you know whether cover save can be taken or not...

2) 25% of the mass. Every single released model will have a different rule. Some top-heavy models will be obscured when 50% of the height is behind cover some, bottom-heavy models will maybe only need 10% of the height. Lets forget for a second that top-heavy models are at a disadvantage with this rule, fact is there is no official ruling about size/mass/height ratios so players must decide for themselves whether enough of the model is hidden behind cover for the cover save to take effect. Imagine all the discussions about how many % of the models mass is above the cover and how much below. Especially when it could be a game winning shot or save.


So I go for the first option, much simpler, no discussion possible and speeds up the game (and every model is treated the same).

(I still think the rule should be changed when super-heavies are concerned, the common vehicle rules just doesn't cut it. 25% for a 6 meter vehicle leaves 4,5 meter to shoot at while 25% of a 100 meter vehicle leaves 75 meter to shoot at - which I think I can hit with my eyes closed :-) )

[rtmaitreya]

I agree with Sly. We play 25% obscured, not 25% height. If you are at 30% height but only cover one leg, what would you guys do? It's a no brainer for us, in that it's clearly not 25% obscured. It doesn't take much fancy math, it takes a reasonable eye. If you're 20-30% and it's not clear, then just drop the cover save by one. This is the kind of thing that is expected throughout southern california.

RTM

[JMichael]

We generally do hieght as well. Mainly because the models and terrain are more a representation of the actual battlefield. Again in an actual fight how many of the models would always be standing nice and tall, instead of crouching behind cover?
Unfortunately in 40k there is no mechanic/rule to allow a model to hide/crouch behind cover.

[Denzark]

I agree with Sly. We play 25% obscured, not 25% height. If you are at 30% height but only cover one leg, what would you guys do? It's a no brainer for us, in that it's clearly not 25% obscured. It doesn't take much fancy math, it takes a reasonable eye. If you're 20-30% and it's not clear, then just drop the cover save by one. This is the kind of thing that is expected throughout southern california.

RTM

30% of the height - of just one of 2 legs - would probably be 15%...

[Ben_S]

So, according to me there are 2 choices we have:

1) 25% of the height. Same rule for all the models whether they are Eldar Titans (top-heavy) or Ork Gargants (bottom-heavy), whether they are sleek (Eldar) or bulky (Ork, Imperium). Simply measure the height and you know whether cover save can be taken or not...

2) 25% of the mass. Every single released model will have a different rule. Some top-heavy models will be obscured when 50% of the height is behind cover some, bottom-heavy models will maybe only need 10% of the height.

Number 2 is NOT a different rule for every model: it's 25% of 'mass' (or 'area' would probably be the better term). That equates to a different height on different models, but that's no different than me saying that '25% of the height' is a different rule because for some (top-heavy) models that will only be 10% of mass/area, while for other (bottom-heavy) models it requires 50% of their mass/area to be covered.

The two positions - 25% height and 25% mass/area - are both just as simple in themselves, it's just either seems more complicated when explained in terms of the other.

I think 25% of the model has to refer to something like mass/area. After all, cover isn't always vertical: sometimes a model's right half will be hidden behind a corner, while the left half is visible. The '25% height' gives no guidance to whether this is cover or not.

You COULD apply 25% in either the vertical or horizontal. But if a model only needs 25% vertical and 25% horizontal cover in order to get a save, then it could be that as little as 1/16th of it is actually obscured. (Imagine you're shooting at a square 4" tall and 4" wide. This can be divided into 16 one-inch squares. Suppose the cover is one inch high and one inch wide, so up to 25% of height and 25% width. Nonetheless, only one of the sixteen squares is behind cover.)

The only way to avoid this seems to be to say something like '25% height = cover if it's across the whole width of the model, but where it's only half the width it needs to be 50% height, etc'. And, at that point, you're talking about 25% area, rather than simply using height.

[rtmaitreya]

So, sometimes you're a height guy, and sometimes you're a mass guy. Best make sure which guy you are before playing with an opponent! Consistency is probably better than flexibility, IMO.

[Denzark]

Where am I inconsistent? If the cover breaks horizontally, this is 25%:

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy257/denzark/cover/Titan_zps9370d96a25horizontal_zpsf135c056.png



If the cover breaks vertically, this is 25%:


http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy257/denzark/cover/Titan_zps9370d96avertical_zpsaa0fdbd3.png


If the cover breaks both horizontally and vertically, this is 25%:


http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy257/denzark/cover/25quarters_zps813e5861.png

[Denzark]

As opposed to looking at the target and trying to agree on exactly 25% by mass - ie 25% of some grid:



http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy257/denzark/cover/gridtitan2_zps6bffbd48.png



Which I challenge anyone to say is easier to agree on than the examples I post above....

[Nabterayl]

So, sometimes you're a height guy, and sometimes you're a mass guy. Best make sure which guy you are before playing with an opponent! Consistency is probably better than flexibility, IMO.
I think this is the actual answer to the OP. The question was not what the rules are, but whether there is widespread consensus. The answer to that question, clearly, is no.

[-Tom-]

I'm with the OP and Orksx3 here (seeing as i was at said comp)

Heres a perespective picture, with a revenant tian pic i stole off google. The red box represents "cover".

As several people have said the cover is 25% of the models height, but no where near its mass/area.

Are you suggestingt hat this model would get a cover save from the red box ruin in this situation?

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/drlove42/Titan_zps9370d96a.png


Maybe a little late to join the thread, but there are comments in examples throughout the rulebook that suggest that cover saves are a generic term applied to 'stuff that can happen to give a save beyond a normal armour save'. Also, examples of when you've got two units in the same cover shooting at each other (e.g. a wood), and the rulebook saying to think of it like they are leaning around the trees snapping off shots at each other then ducking back into cover, which are suggesting to think dynamically.

Dynamically, it's already been suggested that just because there's a big static standing model with only it's leg covered, doesn't mean that it wouldn't kneel down behind the building to get better cover. If 25% of it's height CAN be covered by the building, that would suggest that there is plenty of cover for it to crouch behind.

Also, if its legs are going to be protected by a building, then would be attackers will be having to aim upwards at the torso they can see. Shooting upwards at an angle like that may slightly reduce the energy that ballistics would have, or having to look upwards into the sky they may be dazzled by sunshine affecting their shot, or a bird may poop into their eyes...

[Phototoxin]

*yayImadeapopularthreadgome*

I think another part of the problem is that if the model is occupying the cover or if it's behind it. As I said the main problem I have is that since superheavies are so big it seems silly to hide a portion of them and claim cover but yet they can see fire to hit you and even if they can't their weapons ignore cover. D weapons should ignore the cover that the target is in (representing their destructive potential) but possibly not intervening cover.

[Magpie]

--