Cover, Terrain, 1"

[Myth]

This question arose in a game yesterday. The rules state that a model has cover if the line between the attacker and the target passes through any terrain that is within 1" of the target model.

In the situation we had, there was a line from the attacker to the target that passed through terrain. However, the area where it passed through the terrain was not within 1" of the target - there was 4-5" of open space after the point where the line passed through the terrain.

However, the terrain that was passed through was simply one portion of a structure. Another part of that structure was within 1" of the target. Simply not the part that was in between the two models.

My argument was that the rules for cover require the target to be within 1" of the intervening terrain where the line between the two models passes. My opponent's argument was that as long as the line passes through the terrain at some point, and as long as some other portion of that terrain is within 1" of their model (even if, say, it was behind them), that is enough to quality for the benefit of cover.

Anyone able to find something in the rules that specifies it one way or another?

[Omenbringer]

I would say that you are correct. Unfortunately the rules imply the "intervening" requirement but dont clearly state it (so I can see where your opponent was arguing from).

[Carasz]

I agree with Omenbringer.

[Silas Cordell]

I would say that you are correct. Unfortunately the rules imply the "intervening" requirement but dont clearly state it (so I can see where your opponent was arguing from).

Yes, but that interpretation clearly outs your opponent as "That Guy."

[Justin]

Pg. 60, Defining Terrain Height and Base, last paragraph:

"Some especially large, complex, or oddly shaped terrain pieces may need to be defined as several different pieces of terrain."

[EnternalVoid]

@Justin

Actually this came up in our group too, something that left us scratching. See our piece was not overally large or that oddly shape but it still had this issue. It was a ruined wall with a corner making an "L" shape. Maybe 4-5" long for the long part of the wall and 2" for the short. The shooter was shooting over the tip of the top of the L at a model standing near the end of the lower end. The lines went over the edge of the top of the L but he was about 3-4" from that piece of the wall but with in 1" of the lower part of the L. Will try to get a sort of image in to help *hopes it looks right*

Shooter = 0

Target = T

Wall = l and _

O

SSSSl

SSSSl

SSSSl

SSSSl

SSSSl_____ T

So no part of the piece of wall with in 1" was blocking the lines but the other end of the wall was but that part was at least 3" away. We ruled that based on the rules it did give cover but it caught us by surprise.

[Joel]

I'd have treated those as 2 different walls.

[Myth]

Yeah, in this case, the cover wasn't even all that strangely shaped. It was basically along these lines:

Thus, where the line crossed the terrain, it was 3-4" from the targeted model. But that model was, technically, within 1" of the terrain farther down the wall.

[Stadon]

Would this situation be analogous to the example given in the FAQ regarding being within soft cover but not having any sight lines actually cross the soft cover? You are within one inch of cover, but none of the sight lines pass through the cover you are within one inch of, so you do not have cover.

Edit: Using the right words is important!

[Justin]

Yeah, in this case, the cover wasn't even all that strangely shaped. It was basically along these lines:

Thus, where the line crossed the terrain, it was 3-4" from the targeted model. But that model was, technically, within 1" of the terrain farther down the wall.

In this instance I see nothing wrong with cover. (But maybe the situation was more ambiguous than the illustration can show)

The L shape is what I thought you were talking about, and is why that line is in the book.

But that's me.

[Rilkyn]

I don't think this does provide cover. As I understand it it is the line of sight that counts and the terrain must intersect that line of sight within 1 inch of the target.

[Myth]

I don't think this does provide cover. As I understand it it is the line of sight that counts and the terrain must intersect that line of sight within 1 inch of the target.

Yeah, that was my understanding. But it sounds from Justin's post like this might not be the case? I thought that it was similar to the FAQ entry about standing in cover - if a model is standing in terrain that provides soft cover, but enough of their base is out of the terrain that no sight line from the attacker enters the cover, then the cover would not apply.

Similarly, in this case, my understanding was that if the sight lines from the attacker to the target cross cover, but are not within 1" of the target, than the target doesn't get the benefit of cover. But now I'm not as certain.

[CRC]

Sorry, but as stated earlier, the rule is that if the line crosses cover, and the the cover is within 1" of the defender, they get cover. This qualifies.

If you want to flank someone hiding behind a wall, you need to get past the line of the wall.

[Carasz]

I don't think this does provide cover. As I understand it it is the line of sight that counts and the terrain must intersect that line of sight within 1 inch of the target.

As per Justins comment, line of sight must cross terrain and the model must in within 1" of the terrain, not where the line is crossing. But bigger pieces of terrain, or terrain with curves and other shapes, can be divided into pieces and counted as separate pieces of terrain, as to not abuse this rule.

[Ikvar]

Yeah, in this case, the cover wasn't even all that strangely shaped. It was basically along these lines:

Thus, where the line crossed the terrain, it was 3-4" from the targeted model. But that model was, technically, within 1" of the terrain farther down the wall.

In this example the target would without a shadow of doubt get cover.

I would also like to add that I play with a piece of terrain which counts as hard cover fx, this characteristic would count for the entire base of the terrain. So if you had a wall or a big stone, it would not only be where the stone or wall is physically placed that counts towards hard cover, but also where the rest of the base of the terrain is. This way you wont have a situation where the artistic choice of the terrain would cause doubt about the rules, and end up slowing the game because people need to measure everything... I hope you guys can understand my english ^^

edit: this rule will however be obsolete if you play on a board with fixed terrain... which is kinda why I hate to play on a board with fixed terrain

Edited January 26, 2014 by Ikvar

[solkan]

One possible source of confusion is that a certain other popular miniature game has a similar "within 1" of terrain with line of sight passing through the terrain" rule that got clarified the other way--that the 1" is measured along the line of sight line. So "That's now how it worked in the other game with the same rule..." :slap: :-( without malicious intent on either side of the argument.

Edit for clarity: So it appears to be

Malifaux: Yes, cover in the example, the distance and the line of sight are separate.

Warmachine: No, not cover in the example, measure along the line of sight.

with the two rules similar enough that someone might conflate them.

Edited January 26, 2014 by solkan

[Omenbringer]

Yeah, in this case, the cover wasn't even all that strangely shaped. It was basically along these lines:

Thus, where the line crossed the terrain, it was 3-4" from the targeted model. But that model was, technically, within 1" of the terrain farther down the wall.

Using your graphic, if the distance between the wall and the target (far left circle) is 1" or less then the model would definitely benefit from cover. If the distance from the wall to the target is over 1" then it would not.

[ork56]

But the illustration does not appear to represent the OP described situation.

[HalcyonSeraph]

But the illustration does not appear to represent the OP described situation.

Yes it does. We all agree that in order to have cover, you need to have a sight line cross terrain, and you need to be within 1 inch of that terrain.

The OP's question was whether the target has to be within 1 inch of the point of the terrain at which the sight line crosses, or whether being anywhere within 1inch counted.

Justin has since replied, and I take from his reply that the point where the sight line crosses terrain does not matter so long as it crosses somewhere ad the target is within 1 inch somewhere, but that pieces of terrain that are larger or more problematic with respect to that rule can and should be agreed beforehand to count as multiple different pieces.

[Sarsnick]

I am the opponent from the OP.

 

In this example ignore the bushes and just the grey rock.  

 

 

Imagine the Alp is a HT 2 model and is within 1" of the grey rock directly to the north.

[Ausplosions]

You'll get cover. What's the issue?

[Sarsnick]

You'll get cover. What's the issue?

Calm down, I was just providing a picture of the situation.

[therat]

Since my group has been having this problem I decided to throw up some solid example images. I apologize in advance for the harshly lit December models. They're mostly white and this was hastily done.

 

 

This is the issue my circle runs into most frequently. The gamin wishes to shoot Lilith (brave gamin, no?). Because Lilith is within 1" of the terrain and at least 1 line can be drawn between them that crosses the same terrain, does Lilith receive cover? It is not overly large and is one solid piece so should not warrant any sort of division.

 

 

Once again, the brave little gamin wishes to blast Lilith. This time, however, he is hiding behind what is clearly an off-shoot of the main piece of terrain. While she is within an inch of the main building, she is not within an inch of the offshoot. Is she in cover? 

 

 

This one is similar to the previous one, but the stairs are much more solidly attached to the building; reasonable people could disagree about how much a part of the main building they are. Cover?

 

 

Again, this is along the same lines as the previous two, but with another subtle difference. The small, jutting "veneer" is now between the gamin and this (strangely) opposing Wendigo. The Wendigo is not within an inch of the veneer, but he is within an inch of the building. Similar to my questions above this one, should the veneer be considered not part of building, but a separate piece? Should it be ignored? Finally, of course, is the Wendigo in cover?

 

 

Finally, in sort-of a reverse from the previous example, the Wendigo is within an inch of the veneer, but the building itself is what obstructs LoS.

 

 

Thanks for taking a look and I hope this helps to explain some of the issues other people are running into as well. 

 

 

[Omenbringer]

My opinion is that none of those examples should qualify as providing cover however, from what I can tell (I dont have premission to view them when clicking to enlarge them) all of them would fall within the requirements of the current rules and would.

[therat]

Sorry about that. I opened the images up for public viewing.

[Ausplosions]

Calm down, I was just providing a picture of the situation.

Haha! Seriously? Ok.