Cover

[cptRamires]

Does model B  get cover from lossblocking terrain if it is located more then 1 inch from losblocking part of the terrain but within 1 inch of that terrain.

[CapnBloodbeard]

Is ANY LOS line blocked?

Is the model with 1" of any part of the same item of terrain that is blocking the LOS?

Then yes!

It can lead to some awkward scenarios where the blocking part of the terrain is nowhere near the model and maybe in a curve or L shape, so the model somehow still has cover despite standing in the open....

 

The second example posted is a good example of that.  Cover applies to both, though it doesn't 'look' like it should apply to the second.

[cptRamires]

And here is another example.

[Rob Lo]

This is where discussing the terrain with your opponent beforehand gets mentioned again. In that second example, if you had decided that the two walls that make up the L shape were each separate pieces, perhaps because you've run across this exact problem before, then there wouldn't be cover. The wall that blocks LoS isn't close enough. But really, it's going to depend on each piece of terrain you run across, on every board you ever walk up to. Sometimes it makes sense to split them up for rules interpretations, sometimes it won't.

[Ludvig]

Yes to both unless you houserule it.

[Ludvig]

If ANY line between the two models CAN be drawn through terrain the terrain grants cover so you should always actively try to draw the worst line for determening if you pass through terrain.

[cptRamires]

Thank you.

[icebreaker]

Any difficult-shaded building can get to second situation

[icebreaker]

6 minutes ago, sturkin said:

Any difficult-shaded building can get to second situation

For example:

[MrDeathTrout]

3 hours ago, Rob Lo said:

This is where discussing the terrain with your opponent beforehand gets mentioned again. In that second example, if you had decided that the two walls that make up the L shape were each separate pieces, perhaps because you've run across this exact problem before, then there wouldn't be cover. The wall that blocks LoS isn't close enough. But really, it's going to depend on each piece of terrain you run across, on every board you ever walk up to. Sometimes it makes sense to split them up for rules interpretations, sometimes it won't.

When our group uses terrain like in the second picture we always treat each straight line section of the wall a a separate piece of terrain for LoS/Cover purposes and as one piece for Scheme purposes.

[feagaur]

Seems we've been playing it wrong in my local meta. I'll have to point this out to my playing comrades.
You learn something new every day.

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, Shadowdragon said:

I know it's not to the letter of the rules, but I prefer to lean in the direction of common sense here, and what the developers of the game clearly intended to be the case. In other words, only the part of the terrain between the attacker and the target should count when determining cover (the part you're drawing los through). If the parts of the terrain you're drawing the los lines through isn't within 1" of the target then it wont count as cover. If someone I payed ever claimed that they got cover in a situation similar to the one shown in the second picture I would take the building, snap it in half so it counts as two separate pieces of terrain, put it right back in the same placement, then say "now you don't get cover".

The only thing that is crystal clear is that the developers gave us the perfect tool to handle these situations. You would need to divide the terrain during the "define terrain" step  that is mandatory in setting up a game. No need to snap it after that. That is the explicitly mentioned place to define this piece as one whole or two separate. If you just said "this wall is ht X and grants hard cover" you only have yourself to blame. Take the few extra moments to clarify that you wish them to be two separate pieces before the game in the phase where the developers clearly states that you have to do it. This will take away frustration and prevent you from breaking the lovingly crafted terrain you play on. Snapping it in half during the game would actually not make it count as two separate pieces since it was defined as a single piece before the game  

You are free to houserule it into something that fits more closely with common sense but you should be aware that at a tournament you are may be forced to play according to this interpretation. Forgetting to define terrain clearly is a good way to ruin a tournament experience since most groups have different levels of house rules and silent agreements regarding this rule, how to define linear obstacles and how to handle elevations. Always talk about it before it ruins someone's plans made with the wrong definition of the rules. Defining some terrain pieces differently could change what list your opponent would have brought.

[Strangely Brown]

On 3/31/2016 at 0:33 PM, feagaur said:

I would play it that the first one would get cover as model A isn't able to see all of Model B's base.

Whereas in the second picture, model A can see all of model B (it doesn't have to be left edge to left edge, it can be right edge to left edge).

But you can claim cover if any  straight line goes across the terrain (provided the 1" proximity is also satisfied) - it's not so much that you can define a LOS to see all of my base, it's more that I can define an LOS where you can't...

[santaclaws01]

3 hours ago, Kbonn said:

"That" is not refering to LOS, it is referring to terrain.   However, the better question is that when it says "terrain" does it mean "terrain feature", or just simply "terrain".   The simpler, and more intuitive reading is that it refers to the part of the terrain that is actually blocking the LOS to the target.   To assume that "terrain" means "this entire terrain feature, regardless of how large or oddly shaped it is", rather than "the literal part of the terrain that is the line is being drawn through", is foolish.   When possible, take the simplest reading of a rule, unless is specifies otherwise.

And the simplest reading is that when it says terrain, it means terrain.

[spielervier]

So the official ruling goes as follows: 

Quote

A model will gain the benefits of cover from a projectile attack when any LoS line between the attacking model and the target model can be drawn through any terrain with the soft or hard cover trait that is within 1" of the target model.

The only unclear part is whether or not the within 1" has to be on the mentioned LoS line. Although not specifically mentioned it seems logical that it should be this way.

Rules as written say that in both situations (picture 1 & 2) would grant cover because the terrain piece is within 1" of the models base. But are rules as written also rules as intended? It does seem to be completely not logical that if the terrain is 10" away (on LoS) I would still get cover. Even arguing with a dynamic fight, moving people, etc. it does not make sense to me. But it makes the game a little simpler and avoids discussions, because it's easier to measure terrain to base directly than terrain to base on a specific line that is not really visible.

I personally would tend prefer "if the model is within 1" of the terrain on any of the lines drawn between the two models", but this is not what's written in the rules. And unless otherwise ruled or put into the errata this is the way it is "ruled".

Although I would really like to see this in the next errata update for some clarification.

[santaclaws01]

4 hours ago, Goopy said:

I would argue that both examples the model would not receive cover. Firstly, because that's what makes sense. Secondly, that's what the rules say.

'any cover when any LoS line between the attacking model and the target model can be drawn through any terrain with the soft or hard cover traits that is within 1" of the target model.' 

Now I see where people could get hung up thinking that "that" refers to the piece of terrain and think that the model receives cover. But if we see "that" referring to the LoS line at the point where it intersects with the terrain then the model would not receive cover. Therefore, when two readings of the same rule are equally valid, I think we should go with the logical one. 

Firstly, the word "that" isn't being used as a pronoun, it's being used as an adverb, so neither interpretation is valid. The phrase "that is" is entirely superfluous. Making it "any terrain with the soft or hard cover traits withing 1" of the target model" has the exact same meaning. It just reads better having "that is" in the middle.

[Goopy]

2 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

Firstly, the word "that" isn't being used as a pronoun, it's being used as an adverb, so neither interpretation is valid. The phrase "that is" is entirely superfluous. Making it "any terrain with the soft or hard cover traits withing 1" of the target model" has the exact same meaning. It just reads better having "that is" in the middle.

thanks 4 the grammar lesson 

[Shadowdragon]

I know it's not to the letter of the rules, but I prefer to lean in the direction of common sense here, and what the developers of the game clearly intended to be the case. In other words, only the part of the terrain between the attacker and the target should count when determining cover (the part you're drawing los through). If the parts of the terrain you're drawing the los lines through isn't within 1" of the target then it wont count as cover. If someone I payed ever claimed that they got cover in a situation similar to the one shown in the second picture I would take the building, snap it in half so it counts as two separate pieces of terrain, put it right back in the same placement, then say "now you don't get cover".

[Kbonn]

"That" is not refering to LOS, it is referring to terrain.   However, the better question is that when it says "terrain" does it mean "terrain feature", or just simply "terrain".   The simpler, and more intuitive reading is that it refers to the part of the terrain that is actually blocking the LOS to the target.   To assume that "terrain" means "this entire terrain feature, regardless of how large or oddly shaped it is", rather than "the literal part of the terrain that is the line is being drawn through", is foolish.   When possible, take the simplest reading of a rule, unless is specifies otherwise.

[Goopy]

I would argue that both examples the model would not receive cover. Firstly, because that's what makes sense. Secondly, that's what the rules say.

'any cover when any LoS line between the attacking model and the target model can be drawn through any terrain with the soft or hard cover traits that is within 1" of the target model.' 

Now I see where people could get hung up thinking that "that" refers to the piece of terrain and think that the model receives cover. But if we see "that" referring to the LoS line at the point where it intersects with the terrain then the model would not receive cover. Therefore, when two readings of the same rule are equally valid, I think we should go with the logical one. 

[feagaur]

I would play it that the first one would get cover as model A isn't able to see all of Model B's base.

Whereas in the second picture, model A can see all of model B (it doesn't have to be left edge to left edge, it can be right edge to left edge).