Models Provide Cover...?

Do models provide cover or block line of sight? What about non-standing models?

If they do provide cover and I miss my target by 1, do I hit the blocking model? What if it's a combat? Do I randomize the hit between all the models in the combat?

Models (enemies or allies) provide the usual -1 modifier just like a barrel or another similar obstacle would.

There's nothing about hitting the blocking model/scenery in the rules so, no, you can't hit them - unless you explicitly target them.

I fail to see the connection between cover and close combat.. you can attack those enemies that you are in base-to-base contact with.

I think he means when shooting into CC.

I think he's talking about shooting into combat and cover due to being in close combat. Unfortunately, shooting into Close Combat is not allowed, as you would risk shooting your own units. But, with multi-player, I believe you are able to shoot into Close Combat if neither of those models are part of your warband. You must roll to see which model you are targeting and I do believe that cover would come into play in said case.

Anyone else?

Ha ha, now I feel stupid as looking back it does seem obvious what DRD meant.

As PFT said you may only shoot at combat if none of your own models is involved in the combat (which can only happen if there are more than two players - or the combat involves your enemy and some non-warband models from a random event, such as a giant spider or whatever).

I don't think a -1 modifier applies if you simply aim at the combat. Unless, of course, there is a barricade or some other obstacle providing cover for the combat (which is likely to be the case, because since all models involved in the combat count there is a high chance that at least one of them is blocked in one way or another). So if you can see the combat without anything blocking the way I wouldn't apply the cover modifier. Of course you can almost never see all the models involved in the combat completely as they are standing in each others way, sort of. This should however not be enough to warrant a -1 modifier since this is already dealt with by randomizing the hit.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I should write more gooder.... :-/

What I meant was, in a 2 player game, when firing at a model that is behind close combat but not actually engaged in close combat, what happens?

In other words:

X.................xy................Y

xy are engaged in close combat. X cannot shoot at engaged models, so the closest targetable model is Y. Y is partially obscured by the xy combat, so X applies the -1 cover modifier to his to hit. (Unless of course the real ruling is that xy will block LOS to Y.)

Now, assuming that the LOS is not blocked and that xy provides cover, page 14 of the living rulebook states the following:

"If a shot misses its target by 1, and that target claimed
the -1 modifier for cover, then the shot strikes the
cover instead. Normally this doesn’t matter, but in the
case where a model is concealed behind another
warrior, or when the cover is a powder keg, it might
be extremely important!"

So because the combat provides cover, if X misses the to hit by exactly one, he hits cover. Since cover is the xy combat, how is this resolved?

Yes, cover applies in that scenario. As for that line in the Living Rule Book, I sure wish they would have elaborated on that to state what happens when COVER is hit with a missile/ranged weapon. Do you roll to hit again? Roll to Wound? It leaves it too open for people to calim all types of rulings, but I do see your point now.

From the way it's written, I would assume that you would then randomize to see which model that provided the COVER was then hit, and then roll to wound. Yet, I am not sure if anyone plays this way, as I have never seen that pointed out. Nice catch!

Most definately a nice catch. I remember this line now yet it's pretty "new" to me. We have never applied this rule. Does anyone know if it was added later to the rules or if it was in the original rulebook already? I guess I should look this up.

Hmm.. I must remember this rule for hitting the cover. It's neat actually.

So in your case this would mean that you hit the combar. They rules say that you hit whatever provided the cover so there's no need to make another 'to hit' roll; this was sort of successful already as you did hit something. Proceed to make the to wound roll (or in this case randomize the target first and then roll to wound).

Sounds like this is something that's going to get some use in the upcoming weekend...

Nice Catch there! Thanks!

Easy fix, 50/50 chance it hits one of the two models in base HTH.

The second part of my original question was this: do models' bases block LOS as if they were little bricks in the shape of their bases, or do you simply take the model's eye view and check to see if a part of the target is visible?

I'd say the latter. You can see and shoot at what you can see from the models perspective.

Cool. But just to clarify:

1. If a friendly warrior is standing directly in front of an archer, the archer can shoot "through" him so long as he could reasonably see his target on the other side.

2. If the the "blocking" model is in btb with the shooter, he does not provide cover to the target and you do not risk hitting him on a "missed by 1" to hit role.

Fluff-wise, these two points could represent a firing line--standing archers shooting over kneeling ones. Does this sound correct?

1. The rule book states that you should stoop down to your models level and actually look from his point of view. If you can see the target, it is visible, if it is partially blocked by terrain or another model, it is in cover.

2. Same as above, but I play with a house rule that any terrain or model within 1 inch of the shooter does not provide cover for the target (the shooter is presumably using it as cover and is looking over or around to get a shot.)

JA has it correct and we house rule like he does.

Thanks guys. Good ruling.

Quote :

Rulebook
If a shot misses its target by 1, and that target claimed
the -1 modifier for cover, then the shot strikes the
cover instead. Normally this doesn’t matter, but in the
case where a model is concealed behind another
warrior, or when the cover is a powder keg, it might
be extremely important!

Yeah, that makes it really clear, mate. We take it that this means any model that is providing cover and consequently causes a miss is hit.

Actually I just remembered that we once used this rule when a model had cover from standing behind a powder keg so that there was a chance of hitting the keg and causing it to explode. Nonetheless this rule was not in my consciousness.

One thing to note. If two things provide cover, say a model AND a piece of terrain, like a wooden plank or side of a building, I would roll to randomly determine if the model was the one hit, or the building.

How much cover each piece grants is a moot point, as it's still random.

Example: Model A shoots Model B who is granted cover from Model X and a Ruin.



This scenario, I would still roll randomly, possibly even between Y, X and the Building, to see which one was 'hit'. So, with multiple covers, do you randomly determine which one? That's what I rule on our campign, but I wonder if someone does it differently.

We "house ruled" this rule out.

Now that I am aware of the "hit cover" rule I guess I'd say: 1=Terrain, 2=X, 3=Y, 4=RUIN, 5-6=re-roll or pick a damn D4 to begin with!

Is there a gameplay reason for not being able to shoot into close combat involving your own units? Is this exploitable somehow? Either way I think skaven need a special rule to allow this. Do your duty, ratmen!

Some groups allow it, to speed things up. They randomize the model being hit though, so if it's 1 on 1, then it's 50/50 chance to hit either model. There are other variations, but you have to agree on the new rule with everyone of course.

We usually have multiplayer games in our campaign. When we end up with someone shooting into a combat with no friendly models, we have them nominate a specific model as the target, then role a die. 1 to 4 you hit the intended target, 5 or 6 the other combatant. The reasoning being that you are watching for the best moment to shoot, but there is still risk of hitting the unintended target. And, as you always have a chance of hitting either target, we don't allow firing into CC when your warband is involved.

I think the idea is that a model is usually shooting the greatest threat. If an enemy is tied up in combat, in general the shooter would pick some other target which is a more pressing danger (could charge or shoot him in the near future). With that line of reasoning, elevated models would be justified shooting into combat.

Fluffwise, it does seem like orcs should be able to shoot into goblin combats, skaven heroes into henchmen combats, etc. But allowing it just for some warbands would be unfair. There's also the fact that it is a warband, and undoubtedly each member knows the others as opposed to combat between armies in WHFB.

I personally like the idea of having a shooting skill which allows the shooter to fire into combat (still randomizing hits of course). Although my group doesn't play with any houseruled skills.