cover save and MCs

[mathhammer]

So here is the rule text:

If a target is partially hidden from the fixer's view by
models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit,
or from the target unit), it receives a 5+cover save in the
same way as if it was behind terrain.

The phrase in question is:

... as if it was behind terrain.

So shooting through units.
Given: when shooting through a unit draw a line across the tops of the models and the bases this forms a piece of terrain similar to a wall.

Question: When shooting through this intervening model wall, does your shot just need to pass through the wall for the target model to gain a +5 save, OR does the the invisible wall have to cover 25% of the target model in relation to the shooter to gain the cover save?

Secondary thought: This comes to mind if gaunts are in front of a hive tyrant, or someone is firing from the 3rd level of a building down to another unit.

[Wolfshade]

It just needs to pass through the intervening unit, not be obscured by them, otherwise you could have some strange modelling conventions.

The intervening unit *is* cover, so as long as the MC is 50% behind this they get the save.

[Sly]

It says "partially hidden" with no minimum, so as long as any of the miniature is covered by the front units, it should get the cover save.

[Nabterayl]

The invisible wall has to cover 25% or more of the target model in relation to the shooter. That is what "in the same way as if it was behind terrain" means. Since the quality of the cover save is already specified, if you didn't have to be 25% obscured the rule could stop at "it receives a 5+ cover save." This means that some MCs can be obscured by some intervening units, and others can't, and that even if an MC is sufficiently obscured behind an intervening unit from one shooter's perspective, it might not be from another's (potentially even another shooter in the same firing unit).

[Ben_S]

The invisible wall has to cover 25% or more of the target model in relation to the shooter. That is what "in the same way as if it was behind terrain" means.

I think you're misreading that. If it meant what you say, then it should have been written:


If a target is partially hidden from the fixer's view by
models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit,
or from the target unit), in the same way as if it was behind terrain, it receives a 5+cover save.

That would spell out that you need to be 25% obscured by another unit, just as you do behind terrain. As it's written, the phrase simply elaborates on a cover save and isn't strictly necessary.

Granted, it may be that the author intended what you say and failed to express it, but I see no reason to assume that given that it makes sense as written: you need to be 25% hidden by a wall, because the wall doesn't move around, but firing through another moving unit makes it difficult to aim, even if that unit isn't always obscuring much of the target at any given point in time.

[Nabterayl]

If the import of "as if it was behind terrain" isn't what I think it is, what do you think it is?

EDIT: The moving unit example doesn't make sense to me. In my reading, if the target behind the screen of moving warriors is no more than 4x as tall as the screen, the screen is effective to spoil the shot - but if the target is more than 4x as tall as the screen, it's simply too big to benefit from the spoiling effect of the screen. In your version, a target that is 100x taller than the screen of moving warriors is still obscured. I know that we're discussing the text here, rather than guessing as to the rationale, but the rationale you propose doesn't argue in favor of your interpretation being the more reasonable, in my opinion.

[Ben_S]

As I said, I think it's unnecessary. If you consult the BRB (p. 18) you'll find that phrase is not in bold, as most of the sentence is, suggesting that it's not crucial to the sentence's meaning.

As for the rationale I suggested, it wasn't my intention to show this interpretation is more reasonable. My point is that the RAW has some plausible rationale, so there's no reason (as there sometimes is) to ignore the RAW in favour of something else that the author may have intended. (I didn't say you were doing this; I was merely trying to pre-empt a possible response.)

The next sentence, after that quoted, says that where shooting through gaps in an intervening unit "the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer". That doesn't necessarily contradict you, because it could be completely visible yet still behind an 'invisible wall'. However, the next paragraph goes on to offer rationales rather like I suggested, e.g. the firer missed because "distracted by the more immediate threat" of a closer enemy unit. This suggests that cover saves don't depend on the target being obscured, either by intervening models or some invisible wall between them.

What I think is unclear, and may justify the conclusion you want, is how to interpret the bit at the end of the first paragraph about this not applying if shots go over, rather than through, the intervening unit. I suspect this is meant for cases where the firer is on a hill/ruin (etc) and can see over intervening units, but it's certainly arguable that you can shoot a Trygon over a screen of Termagants too. Then it would be the case that the Trygon doesn't get a cover save, but it's because of this later sentence taking it back (saying this doesn't apply), rather than because the first sentence never conferred it, as it were.

[Nabterayl]

As I said, I think it's unnecessary. If you consult the BRB (p. 18) you'll find that phrase is not in bold, as most of the sentence is, suggesting that it's not crucial to the sentence's meaning.
It isn't in bold, no, but when choosing between an interpretation that requires us to say, "Well these words here, they don't actually have any function" and one that does not require us to say that, all things being equal, I think it's best practice to choose the latter. I suggest that "in the same way as if it was behind terrain" is a reference to the 25% obscured rule, clarifying what is meant by "partially hidden." You propose that it means nothing, and the rule could have been written without those words, even though it wasn't. Without anything else to go on, I don't see why we should prefer that reading.

[Ben_S]

It isn't in bold, no, but when choosing between an interpretation that requires us to say, "Well these words here, they don't actually have any function" and one that does not require us to say that, all things being equal, I think it's best practice to choose the latter. I suggest that "in the same way as if it was behind terrain" is a reference to the 25% obscured rule, clarifying what is meant by "partially hidden." You propose that it means nothing, and the rule could have been written without those words, even though it wasn't. Without anything else to go on, I don't see why we should prefer that reading.

The reason I don't take it to be referring to the 25% obscured rule is that rule says: "If a target is partially hidden from the fixer's view by models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit, or from the target unit), it receives a 5+cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain". Given the comma and word placement, 'in the same way as if it was behind terrain' applies to 5+ cover save, not to being partially hidden. This means it's just an elaboration on cover save, in the same way as it you said 'a jinking skimmer gets a 5+ cover save, as if it was behind terrain' - cover saves can actually come from a variety of sources, but are the same effect.

This way of reading the rule explains why that phrase is not bold - it isn't crucial to the meaning of the sentence (just as the bracketed bit, also dispensable, is also not in bold). On your interpretation, the 'in the same way...' bit crucially modifies what came earlier, so it seems very strange that it isn't in bold too. Presumably the purpose of the bold text is so you can see the crucial information at a glance (e.g. when looking up the rule mid-game); it would hardly serve this purpose if it omitted crucial qualifiers.

Had the writer meant to be invoking a 25% obscurement rule, the sentence could have been written: "If a target is partially hidden from the fixer's view by models from a third unit (models not from the firer's unit, or from the target unit), in the same way as if it was behind terrain, it receives a 5+cover save". Then 'in the same way...' would apply to being partially hidden, not just to the kind of save one gets. That the author could easily have worded it this way, but did not, tells against your interpretation.

Admittedly, he could (according to my interpretation) have dropped these words altogether without altering the rule. But I don't see any reason why we should assume the rules to be written in the most economical way possible - indeed, it's quite clear just from these few paragraphs that the rules include various pieces of elaboration and rationale that could be dispensed with.

[Tynskel]

It isn't in bold, no, but when choosing between an interpretation that requires us to say, "Well these words here, they don't actually have any function" and one that does not require us to say that, all things being equal, I think it's best practice to choose the latter. I suggest that "in the same way as if it was behind terrain" is a reference to the 25% obscured rule, clarifying what is meant by "partially hidden." You propose that it means nothing, and the rule could have been written without those words, even though it wasn't. Without anything else to go on, I don't see why we should prefer that reading.

You should listen to Nabterayl, as he brings up valid points on how to read and interpret rules.

[Nabterayl]

This means it's just an elaboration on cover save, in the same way as it you said 'a jinking skimmer gets a 5+ cover save, as if it was behind terrain' - cover saves can actually come from a variety of sources, but are the same effect.
But that wouldn't be true at all. Being behind "terrain" doesn't tell us anything about the value of the cover save. The only thing that all terrain has in common, cover save-wise, is the 25% rule.


Admittedly, he could (according to my interpretation) have dropped these words altogether without altering the rule. But I don't see any reason why we should assume the rules to be written in the most economical way possible - indeed, it's quite clear just from these few paragraphs that the rules include various pieces of elaboration and rationale that could be dispensed with.
The only profession I know of whose job is to explain what ordinary sentences mean to a native speaker is that of lawyer, and we lawyers have for centuries decided that, if you are literally choosing between two interpretations that are equally probable except that one of them assumes the author put some words in that don't actually mean anything, you should choose the other one. It is only a rule of thumb, so it is not right 100% of the time (sometimes people do put in words just for the hell of it, obviously), but it's intuitively obvious to me that this is a good rule of thumb.

Of course, even if you subscribe to this rule of thumb, the two possible interpretations do have to be otherwise equally probable. So as to your point about the bolded text, I think that the bold stops in the right place even if I am right. I agree with you that the point of the bolding is to let the reader easily locate the main point of the rule, and in most cases all you need to know is that the target is behind an intervening unit. The cases in which the intervening unit is not tall enough to cover 25% of the target model, or that the shooter is high enough that the intervening unit doesn't cover 25% of the target model from the shooter's perspective, are rare.

[daboarder]

If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by
models from a third unit (rnodels not from the firer's unit,
or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save in the
same way as if it was behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires
through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the
target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the fi.rer.
Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather
than through it

kinda really says it all, no FAQ because an FAQ is not required

[Anakzar]

Ok so an Example: Tervigon has some termagants right at its feet. Shooter can't see the feet over the termagants so the Tervigon gets its 5+ cover save?

Side note: I would have liked to see Tervigons and termagants become a sort of super Unit. Just introduce a 4+ save made by the Tervigon (look out sir, but called something else). Passing means one termagant within 6 inches s splatted instead of wounding the Tervigon...

[Tynskel]

It is only a rule of thumb, so it is not right 100% of the time (sometimes people do put in words just for the hell of it, obviously), but it's intuitively obvious to me that this is a good rule of thumb.


cf. Dickens.

[Ben_S]

kinda really says it all, no FAQ because an FAQ is not required

I mentioned that passage, above, but as I said there it doesn't actually settle the present issue. Nabterayl allows (I assume) that you can get a cover save even though no part of your model is hidden behind any part of an intervening model. His claim is that you must be 25% obscured by the 'invisible wall' formed out of the intervening unit. That's not contradicted by what you quoted.


The only profession I know of whose job is to explain what ordinary sentences mean to a native speaker is that of lawyer, and we lawyers have for centuries decided that, if you are literally choosing between two interpretations that are equally probable except that one of them assumes the author put some words in that don't actually mean anything, you should choose the other one. It is only a rule of thumb, so it is not right 100% of the time (sometimes people do put in words just for the hell of it, obviously), but it's intuitively obvious to me that this is a good rule of thumb.

Of course, even if you subscribe to this rule of thumb, the two possible interpretations do have to be otherwise equally probable. So as to your point about the bolded text, I think that the bold stops in the right place even if I am right. I agree with you that the point of the bolding is to let the reader easily locate the main point of the rule, and in most cases all you need to know is that the target is behind an intervening unit. The cases in which the intervening unit is not tall enough to cover 25% of the target model, or that the shooter is high enough that the intervening unit doesn't cover 25% of the target model from the shooter's perspective, are rare.

You've never heard of English teachers then? j/k

It's interesting that you're a lawyer. I have no legal training whatsoever, but I still almost brought up a case that was recently in the UK news concerning the interpretation of a will. The point I wanted to make though is that this is accepted practice in legal interpretation, but that doesn't mean that it applies to the interpretation of ordinary English. (Indeed, I'd say it's not an "intuitively obvious" principle of interpretation, or it wouldn't depend on legal training!)

As I pointed out above, GW's rules are clearly not written in the most economical way possible. They're often informal - even 'chatty' in style, they offer explanations or rationales for the rules, examples, etc. There are several examples on this very page, including the bracketed portion of the sentence under discussion. Would the rule change were the bracketed section removed? No. So why is that section there? Because GW's rules are not written by or for lawyers according to the norms of legal language.

So, I think there's no presumption that these words must alter the meaning of the sentence; it's perfectly reasonable to postulate unnecessary verbosity since there are so many other examples of it. But there's still the issue of scope. Do they mean merely that the cover save received is the same as the cover save one gets behind terrain (when one gets a cover save from the terrain), as I suggest, or that the conditions under which one gets the cover save are the same as the conditions under which one gets a cover save from terrain, as you suggest?

I think we can both see where the other is coming from here and agree that, whichever was intended, the rule could have been more clearly written to remove this ambiguity, so neither of us is obviously right or wrong here - so perhaps further discussion will only get (more) repetitive. But I still think that the most natural way to read the sentence - that is, the way an ordinary, competent speaker, not necessarily a lawyer - to read the sentence is as I suggested.

If they meant the 'in the same way' bit to refer to 'partially hidden' then it should appear earlier in the sentence. Moreover, it still seems odd not bold that bit if it is, as you suggest, crucial to the meaning of the sentence, even if it only makes a difference in some cases.

[Tynskel]

I would argue that this isn't 'ordinary english'. Rules for a game is not unlike rules used in a court system. Rules are designed to allow groups of people to interpret a system the same way.

[Nabterayl]

Well, even if it isn't ordinary English, I would certainly concede Ben's point that it isn't legal English, either (I mean, frankly, I think we'd all find it a lot clearer if it were!). And I certainly agree with him that even if one of us is provably right (and I'm not saying that's the case), neither of us is obviously right.