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?

[solkan]

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.

See end.

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?

See end.

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?

Reasonable people would be required to discuss their terrain before the game, and reach an agreement on whether that staircase was considered to be the same piece of terrain as the rest of the building. Because that's what the rulebook says to do.

See also end.

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?

See below.

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.

What two consenting players agree to concerning the terrain is the only thing that matters. That is how they determine who many multitudes of components compose the terrain elements. According to the rules, they are to reach this agreement before playing. If you have a closely knit group of players, one might expect that closely knit group of players to reach a group consensus that suits them.

If you are playing in a tournament, the tournament organizer or officials may provide you with mandatory agreements on how to treat the terrain.

When dealing with complex objects, you might notice that the height of the terrain feature is also going to cause unexpected difficulties if you don't adequately decompose structures into constituent parts. Does your group wish to treat the staircase as part of the terrain element, and thus as tall as the roof? Or does your gaming group wish to treat the staircase as its own terrain element and thus its own height? Only your gaming group can know.

[Dracomax]

@Solkan: I don't disagree, but I think having a better set of "rules of thumb" can only help, and even friendly games can devolve into arguments about things like cover.

Having tournaments rule inconsistently on such things can also be a major pain.

 

I think I would say that none of them provide cover to the wendigo, but all of them provide cover to the Gamin.

[Bacms]

I would always argue that the line Justin point out should work on this case. With the exception of your first picture and your last those parts of the building have clearly different heights from the main building so it is better to treat them as different pieces of terrain. That is normally how we do on the UK tournaments. So we would say those are not in cover. The first one could also be treated as two separate walls so the target would not be in cover but I can see why it could cause an argument. Finally I am not sure about the last one 

[therat]

but I can see why it could cause an argument.

 

This is the whole issue in a nutshell.

 

Dracomax seems to share my feelings on the matter. While I agree there is far too many oddities in terrain pieces to have complete uniformity and some case-by-case discussion will be needed, I feel like there is not enough official direction; there are too many cases where this sort of thing becomes an issue. I intend to suggest to my group that we craft some house rules regarding terrain and while this will do fine for most games we play, it can set us up for problems when we play with others.

[Eyefink]

In my opinion, any wall formation that is at different angles should be considered two separate instances of terrain for cover purposes. Assuming in the first picture that you are discounting the raised floor, there would be no cover available in any of those instances.

[refan6]

This situation happened to us today as well

 

I said no cover because imagine this,

 

a model is hiding around a corner and shooting, he would receive cover. The model that is getting shot at even though within 1'' of the wall would not receive cover getting shot at in the open receiving shots from a model peeking around a corner.

 

Has there been an official ruling on this issue yet? 

[Dirial]

Has there been an official ruling on this issue yet? 

 

What issue (besides this being a one year old thread)? Can you provide an illustration? I cannot say why a model in the open should receive cover, or why you consider a model within 1" of a wall to be in the open.

 

Have you consulted the FAQ regarding your issue?

[Lucidicide]

Definitely locking this. At this point, start a new thread.