Cover and Double Shot....

[Kriegshund]

This question arises from a situation that occurs when a unit with Double Shot or an ability that allows it to fire more than once against a unit that may roll for cover.

One camp believes that if the unit being fired upon is successful at rolling for cover, that unit should be considered under cover if it is fired upon again by the same unit due to a special ability.

The other camp believes that an extra attack made by the same unit should be considered a separate attack, and a unit that rolled a successful cover upon the first attack, is still obliged to roll for cover again upon being fired at a second time by the same unit.

What are your thoughts? Thank you for your time.

[TheFoeHammer]

We play that its a separate attack and therefore gets a separate cover roll.

[Y2UAsk]

They're two separate attacks, so the defender gets two separate cover rolls, the same as if the attacks came from different units.

Steve

[Bobsalt]

We play that its a separate attack and therefore gets a separate cover roll.

That's the way I see it too...

[Galfridus]

The ability text for Double Shot says two attacks, so we treat it as two separate attacks, each requiring a separate cover save.

Harder to take cover from a machine gun? Makes sense to me...

[Aries]

Separate attack here too.

If they rolled cover, they are on the verge of being disrupted next turn so you can think of it as the first attack causes the unit to start shifting in their position and thus perhaps uncovers themselves (based on the second cover roll) on the followup shot.

[Saxon]

yep agree there 2 attacks = 2 cover roles, pretty simple really

[Akela152]

Agree, same here

[Kriegshund]

Thank you, gentlemen. I agree with you as well, but I ran into this problem when playing at a local gaming club. It's quite competitive but usually not too tense. However, we have a couple guys and their minions who are known for rules lawyering. That by itself isn't too bad, except they are BAD rules lawyers, and they are all buddies and usually fall in line with one another.

They are min-max players too, playing only the "best" units for the "best" cost, and fail to field units that are the "best" for the job because they fail to meet their min-max standards. When their min-max army begins to fall apart to a more thoughtful combined arms army and better tactics they believe the only flaw must be in the rules. It couldnt be their "perfect" min-max army (on paper).

Anyhow, they were giving me a hard time about rolling for cover when my MG42 was making a second attack when they had successfully rolled for cover on the first. Their arguement was that since they are being attacked from the same unit in the same position, that there was no factor that would have uncovered them from the first attack. For a logic or realism exercise it is a barely reasonable position, but for gameplay I believed it was just plain wrong not to mention the complexity (ifs, ands, or buts) it encumbers the game with.

Im going off on a ranting tangent, forgive me. Thank you for your responses....

[Vulturedoodle]

Two shots, two attacks, two cover rolls. Sounds like one of your camps is just plain wrong. :)

--SEF

[VGHutcherson]

Pg 24:
"Making a Cover Roll: When you are attacking a unit in a forest, hill, marsh (Soldiers only), or town hex, the defending player may make a cover roll. If the defending player succeeds on the cover roll, the effect of your attack is limited to disruption. To succeed on the cover roll, the defending player must roll 4 or higher if the target is a Soldier, and 5 or higher if it’s a Vehicle. Each individual unit attacked while in defensive terrain makes a separate cover roll each time it’s attacked."

Two attacks, two cover rolls. :rolleyes:

[Akela152]

If they give you a hard time, tell them to come here, I think they'll understand...
(Geez some people "make" weird rules when they loose)

I had a guy like that were I play Warhammer 40K, The first time I played, (those who know about the game will understand)There was that guy in front of me that said that his imperial guard infantry (catachan) had a 3+ armor save, the same save that the Spacemarine I borowed from my friend to try the game. Finaly, I lost (Duh) and bough the Codex "Imperial guard" just to see that the catachan have a 6+ armor save... (Jungle fighter doctrine)

btw, A Space Marine is wroth around 14 pts and a guardsmen is wroth about... 6 pts.

[Garc]

Don't rule out the fact that rules lawyers - all games have them - know the rules well enough to know when the rules are against them. Sounds like your lawyers knew they were wrong, and so appealed to "logic." A common trait in all the lawyers I ever was a game master for.

Garc's Warlording maxim #1
Whenever a rules lawyer appeals to logic - he knows he's wrong!