LoS issue

[Csonti]

Answering to a previous question I flipped through the LoS and cover rules and found a disturbing thing. Here is my beautiful Paint job to illustrate the issue:

A targets B with a attack. Does B benefit from soft cover?

I played all my games with a firm yes on this but the rules don't seem to agree with me on this so clearly.

Page 41:

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 that is within 1" of the target model.

So if LoS lines are blocked by model bases, the red lines drawn as examples are the only possible type of solutions to draw LoS lines. And those are not crossing any soft cover terrain therefore model B should not get the cover benefits.

However on page 40 we can read:

A model has No LoS to a target model if no LoS line can be drawn between the acting model and the target model without crossing blocking terrain or the base of another model (friendly or enemy).

A highlighted the word another because this is an addition in the print version compared to the last open beta document. And this one word maybe allows soft cover to work the way I thought it should work.

As far as i can see, this modification allows the drawing of LoS lines like the blue one below.

And this one fulfills the requirements of getting cover with model B.

Any thoughts on this? I'm a little uneasy with my interpretation.

[mythicFOX]

I don't have my book in front of me. Can someone have a look at how LOS lines are drawn in the relevant section of the book. It was on P24 of the beta rules under the heading 'Line of Sight Lines'.

I could quote what it says in the beta doc but I want to make sure it hasn't changed.

That may throw some light on this.

[Csonti]

Here you are.

To determine LoS from a model to a target, the players will draw a series of imaginary straight lines from the acting model to the target model. These LoS lines are drawn from anywhere on the acting model's base to anywhere on the target's base. We assume models represent non-static characters who bob and weave a bit on the tabletop, and using the base to determine LoS serves to represent this.

This section didn't change.

[Boshea]

Over thinking it. The 'another' refers to a third model. You draw lines between the acting and targeting model only being stopped by blocking terrain and other models.

[mythicFOX]

I think it's covered in a line quoted in Csonti's second post;

LoS lines are drawn from anywhere on the acting model's base to anywhere on the target's base.

So to my reading you could draw a LOS line as shown by the blue line in the second diagram of Csonti's original post. This blue LOS line would meet the quoted requirement;

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 that is within 1" of the target model.

So IMO you get the cover so long as part of the base is in the terrain.

[zFiend]

I would have played that as a no, as the model A has direct line to model B and the soft cover is behind model B.

[mythicFOX]

Do you have a rules based reason for thinking that?

The rules as quoted wouldn't suggest that's how it works.

[Lolcanoe]

I would say no cover. Can the 2 red "cover determining" lines be drawn without going through a cover granting object?

From what hat I can tell, the 2 red lines are used for cover and LoS. If one of the LoS lines gets blocked by something that would grant cover, then cover is given. in your first example, the LoS lines are not blocked, thus not granting cover.

The diagram on pg 40 should help.

[mythicFOX]

Again though, based on the quoted text:

LoS lines are drawn from anywhere on the acting model's base to anywhere on the target's base.

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 that is within 1" of the target model.

A line can be drawn to the back of model B's base, and it will pass through the terrain, putting the model in cover.

What am I missing?

[Joel]

Since models block LoS, can the blue line in the diagram be drawn to that edge of the base?

If it can, the model has cover for all the reasons mythic fox states.

If not, then only the "front" half of the base matters and the model won't have cover as the terrain is not intervening.

[Adran]

Cover is granted if any of the lines from 1 base to another base cross a cover giving piece within 1"of the model.

The model will gain cover if any part of its base is in the cover.

[dgraz]

I'm unconvinced. Could you actually even draw the blue line because models are blocking? I think that's a valid point............yes, per the text it says any point of the base....but the interaction with LoS and blocking would seem to indicate that it would only be the edges of the base that you can reach without actually passing through the model.

Also, everything else is 'nearest point of base'.....and cover generally needs to be intervening.

It's an odd one that's for sure.

I will say though, that I'd much rather it be interpreted as the model gets no cover. I've always also played it as they do, but I think it's stupid and it's basically just gaming the system. If there was a big line of hedges, and you're standing in front of it with your hand on it.......well, you might be safe if that's home in a game of freeze-tag, but I don't really think a guy with a pistol is going to have any problem targeting you.

With Csonti's new version of reading this rule, it would make perfect sense.....you need to have about half your base within the cover to get the benefit.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I would say that yes, there is cover. Just like when you shoot into combat, the randomization rule exists because in a more cinematic realistic standpoint, models in melee are not standing still like they are on the table in one position, they are whirling around each other, dodging, ducking and swinging at each other. I see this as the same. The model is close to the trees which could be causing difficulty in spotting them, or they are weaving in and out of the trees. You'll notice that if that ground was rough ground then ANY movement attempted while any portion of the base was inside the terrain would count against the movement penalties for rough ground.

We know that certain aspects of the game have to be abstracted, and this to me is one of those areas, I would interpret and rule if this was an event I was running that the model would get cover.

[Fenton Crack]

I believe the "blue lines" can be drawn as in the example, as the change from the beta to "another model" in the current rules had no part of the model blocking line of sight to itself, however I agree those that hope any official ruling would ultimately be that there is no cover in this situation.

It would be quite unintuitive if it gives cover, but I would also agree with Mythic Fox that as written, it appears that it does.

[Dracomax]

Honestly, I think the rule from first edition probably still applies, in that if any part of the base is on terrain, then that terrain counts for the entire model. Otherwise, I want my extra inch of movement back from having to count both entering and leaving the difficult terrain.

For consistency, they should be the same.

[mythicFOX]

I also think it's far easier / cleaner in game terms to tell if a base is partly inside an area of cover than it is trying to work out if it's over half way inside cover.

Plus RAW 'any portion' appears the correct interpretation based on the LOS line wording.

Edited November 19, 2013 by mythicFOX

[dgraz]

I also think it's far easier / cleaner in game terms to tell if a base is partly inside an area of cover than it is trying to work out if it's over half way inside cover.

Gotta agree on that. And as Fetid says, it's abstracted.........I'm totally cool with some abstraction if it makes the game easier/better.

[Ausplosions]

If the lines drawn don't cross terrain that the target is within 1 inch of, there is no cover. It's that simple, the rules don't contradict that.

The reference to "lines can be drawn to any part of a base" to me reads as a clarification that it doesn't have to drawn from the "front" of the mode, the the "front" of the target.

In the other case, a target could be standing in front of a building wall, within 1". Cover.

LoS lines need to cross the cover for cover to be granted.

Honestly, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[Robble]

If the lines drawn don't cross terrain that the target is within 1 inch of, there is no cover. It's that simple, the rules don't contradict that.

The reference to "lines can be drawn to any part of a base" to me reads as a clarification that it doesn't have to drawn from the "front" of the mode, the the "front" of the target.

In the other case, a target could be standing in front of a building wall, within 1". Cover.

LoS lines need to cross the cover for cover to be granted.

Honestly, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

That's how we've played it in the past. outside base edge to outside base edge. If the lines don't cross over/through terrain there's no cover.

The addition of the weird blue line makes no sense to me.

[mythicFOX]

But again LOS lines, as quoted, are not drawn edge to edge. They're drawn from any part to any part, so if any part of the base is inside the cover then some of the LOS lines have to cross the cover.

[Ausplosions]

Hmm.. It's a conundrum.

You might just be convincing me Mythic.

[Robble]

But again LOS lines, as quoted, are not drawn edge to edge. They're drawn from any part to any part, so if any part of the base is inside the cover then some of the LOS lines have to cross the cover.

In this logic the blue line ends when it touches the front of the base. It does not intersect and continue on through the base to the other base edge.

[DavicusPrime]

I've always played that the terrain effecting the LoS/Cover status of the target has to actually be between the shooter and target. If the players define an "area terrain" piece where the base of the terrain feature imparts an effect, I would still rule that not being totally inside the base would negate the effect. But without a specific rule, it falls under the players define the terrain before the game part of playing the game.

-DavicusPrime

[Ausplosions]

An FAQ entry would be good to resolve this I think.

[rancor709]

Yes

[Mydnight]

In this logic the blue line ends when it touches the front of the base. It does not intersect and continue on through the base to the other base edge.

Any part means any part. It doesn't arbitrarily end because it intersects a part of the base. You could draw a line from the back of one base, through it's front, to the targets front, and then to the back and have a legitimate line. That's what it means when it says you can draw from any part to any part. There's no stipulation that the line has to stop as soon as it intersects the base.