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.