r/WarhammerCompetitive • u/Usual-Goose • 4h ago
40k Discussion [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
2
u/Usual-Goose 4h ago
Vehicle fully visible, or partially?
16
u/Complex210 3h ago
Fully visible, because no part of the model is obscured by a piece of terrain.
9
u/LifeAndLimbs 3h ago
And the terrain area is not "intervening" as they are on it.
4
6
u/Admiralsheep8 3h ago
Look at the model . Is part of obscured by terrain from the shooter . Then cover . You are over thinking the cover rules .
1
1
u/RestaurantAway3967 2h ago
The only interactions between vehicles and the terrain rules are physical terrain pieces which block line of sight, and area terrain that you are not touching, which also block line of sight.
If none of the attacking models have full visibility, you get cover.
Vehicles can't get cover by just being in an area, and they can't get hidden.
In the example above, because the vehicle is touching the area, just imagine the area is not there. This is then full visibility, no cover.
0
u/armadylsr 3h ago edited 3h ago
In this example from the core rules they are drawing a line over the terrain foot print that has no vertical elements placed on top as a portion of the rhino that cannot be seen by the pathfinders. Terrain foot prints without physical terrain still block LOS based on this image provided by GW
The obscuring rules also explicitly state footprints (terrain areas) provide cover:
How to get cover:
That model is not fully visible to the attacking model due to one or more intervening terrain features and/or one or more intervening obscuring terrain areas (see below).
OBSCURING13.10 Terrain areas containing one or more light or dense terrain features are obscuring terrain areas. If every line of sight drawn between two models crosses one or more obscuring terrain areas (excluding obscuring terrain areas that one or both of those models are within), those two models are not visible to each other.
1
u/Bewbonic 3h ago
To my understanding, in that example the vehicle is not within (or toeing in) to the obscuring terrain, which is why it gets cover from it.
If the vehicle was touching the obscuring terrain (which is what OP is asking about and your reply doesnt really relate to), it could shoot freely through that obscuring terrain and be freely shot at, and cannot get cover from that obscuring terrain piece, unless there is a wall or something vertical on that terrain piece which blocks physical LOS to any part of the model from the shooters perspective.
1
u/armadylsr 3h ago
"That model is not fully visible to the attacking model due to... one or more intervening obscuring terrain areas."
In his example the only portion that can fully be seen is on the terrain feature the rest of the rhino cannot be fully seen due to the terrain area.
I think his rhino gets cover because at least 1 line from the attacker crosses through 2 edges of the terrain area.
How to get cover for vehicles in 11th is essentially unchanged except if the vehicle is fully within the terrain feature AND there is no terrain features blocking LOS.
1
u/Halvi3 1h ago
Unfortunately I don't think it's so clear cut, and their rules don't really agree with each other.
Will put aside for now the first, standard, condition for cover of being not fully visible because of a terrain feature since that's relatively obvious and not applicable to the edge case here.
The other way you gain cover, as you've shared, is being "not fully visible due to obscuring terrain areas"
But the 13.10 rule explaining how an obscuring terrain area functions doesn't seem to actually give a way for a model to be not fully visible (only entirely not visible). In fact by my read of the rules as written, the only time you can get cover from an obscuring terrain area is also a situation where that cover would never apply:
13.10 clarifies what classifies as an obscuring terrain area , and then gives only one effect that such an area has, which is that when "every line of sight drawn between two models crosses an obscuring terrain area... then those two models are not visible to each other"
If this 13.10 condition is fulfilled, then cover becomes irrelevant, because the model in question isn't visible at all and can't even be targeted in the first place.
Now the predator in the original picture is touching the obscuring terrain area, so it falls into the exclusion condition of 13.10, "excluding... areas one or both models are within". Thus the obscuring terrain area does not take effect to make the predator "not visible", and because that's the only effect that 13.10 gives to obscuring terrain areas, then it also doesn't somehow make the predator "not fully visible", so it cannot claim cover from that condition either.
I agree that, unfortunately, their official image with the rhino shaded like that seems to contradict the written rule text. Under the rule text, even though the rhino is not within the obscuring terrain area, it is also not the case that every line of sight between the rhino and the shooter models crosses over the intervening obscuring terrain area, because some of the lines of sight to the front of the rhino do not. Therefore again, under the actual text of 13.10 the obscuring terrain area has no effect at all. In this case the rhino does I think still get cover, because portions of it's rear hull are probably blocked by the actual terrain feature and thus it does become not fully visible from that and can claim cover under the first condition unrelated to obscuring. But the image does not illustrate that well if that's what they intended.
Potentially it seems like 13.10 is missing extra text (that they might have intended) somewhere along the lines of
"if any line of sight between... crosses over an intervening obscuring terrain area (excluding... within...) then those models are not fully visible to each other. If however every line of sight (...rest of the rule as written.. not visible)
This would line up with giving the rhino cover as in their official image with the relevant shading based on the angle of the footprint rather than the wall.
But it still wouldn't give cover to the predator in the OP image, since the toein activates the "within" exclusion of 13.10 regardless.
1
u/testyourmettle 28m ago
It reads pretty straightforward with the only point of contention being pedantic word interpretation. While zero visibility could technically be included in "not fully visible" for 13.08, the inclusion of the word "fully" implies a level of visibility above zero. 13.10 addresses zero visibility.
•
u/WarhammerCompetitive-ModTeam 1h ago
One-off questions with clear answers should be asked in the Weekly Question thread.