cover stacking?

[Joel]

Couldn't see an obvious answer in the rulebook on this (although I could take an educated guess at it), so thought I'd drop a topic in here.

 

 

If a model is getting targeted by a projectile attack and is in both hard and soft cover, do the cover penalties stack, or is simply the best one used?

 

e.g.

 

a model is poking his head around the corner of a wall, and is also stood in a wood, when an enemy decides to chance a shot.  The model is in both hard cover (the wall) and soft cover (the wood).

 

My natural reaction is to say that only the best one counts (so hard cover), but I couldn't really see that backed up in the rules.

 

guidance anyone?

[zFiend]

I'd somehow lean towards getting both. As logic kinda says if you shoot behind a wall it's hard, if you shoot behind a wall and a forest it's even harder. But it doesn't always work that way in games  

[Joel]

My reasoning for thinking it doesn't stack is that if a model is behind 2 pieces of hard cover - say a lamppost and a corner of a building - then it still just "hard cover" not "double hard cover"

 

the word "any" crops up in the shooting into cover rules on p.42 of the rules manual - which indicated to me that cover of the same type doesn't stack - so why would it for soft + hard cover?

 

but now I'm second guessing myself again...

[zFiend]

I think it's a tough question. I'm not sure, but I think this came up earlier and there was no conclusion on it then either? But I think it would be good to get the answer. As there are models which can provide "Mists" and it would be good know if those abilities can be used to really help a model in cover to survive. As one - flip is easy to negate but two isn't. 

[Thaarup]

Pretty sure you don´t get both cover "types". Hard cover is already an "upgraded" version of Soft cover. It is essentially soft cover with a bonus. You simple take the best type of cover.

[Joel]

and that was my thinking, but I couldn't back it up from the rulebook - any help there?

[Dracomax]

I don't think it is explicit anywhere in the rules for M2E—but I don't have the small rulebook yet.

 

I am fairly sure it wasn't intended—The ruling on hazardous terrain, and a couple of other things lead me to believe this, but I could also be bringing pre-edition change prejudices to it. RIght now, I think that playing it that they do would be allowed, under the "everything not forbidden is allowed" way of thinking, but I would worry that it would make cover and cover abilities more powerful than intended.

[Dirial]

Well, I see your problem. Any terrain should logically have only one of the traits (not that that's mandatory) as per the terrain trait rules. In the Cover rules on p. 41 there is an "or" that could be interpreted as mutually exclusive but it refers to the terrain traits and thus doesn't say much about a situation where you hide behind two pieces of terrain or have a Cover granting aura.

 

My conclusion would be that the situation would not be common but if encountered you would get both soft and hard cover.

 

 

Pretty sure you don´t get both cover "types". Hard cover is already an "upgraded" version of Soft cover. It is essentially soft cover with a bonus. You simple take the best type of cover.

 

This is actually never stated. The terrain traits are distinct without any reference to each other. There isn't a rule which says they can't describe the same piece of terrain, either.

 

It would be the most logical solution (and goes well with my Warmachine mindset), though.

[Dracomax]

Keep in mind that terrain traits of "Hard Cover" and  "Soft Cover" are also explicitly different than having Hard cover or soft cover. the terrain type grants the cover, but the cover itself is not the trait. So while a piece of terrain may only have one, there isn't anything in the rules that says a model may not be granted both.

 

However, since the do not have a +#, cover of the same type would never stack.

[Joel]

yep - the lack of the plus is important I feel, but doesn't cover the "in both hard and soft cover" issue.

 

other abilities would seem to stack - such as perfect camouflage on waldgeist and silurids - as they only have an effect if you are in cover in the first place.

[HalcyonSeraph]

I don't think the lack of a number is important because cover isn't a Condition, and thus the whole business about not stacking unless there's a number doesn't apply. 

 

My reading would be that you either have cover or your don't, and your cover changes its quality based on which trait your cover has, which would imply it does not "stack" but that is far from ironclad.

[Joel]

So, is the questioning sequence

 

1) "do I have cover?"  "If yes, what quality does the cover have?"  and then simply assign soft OR hard and go from there

 

OR

 

2) "do I have soft cover?"  "do I have hard cover?"  check answers to both questions.  Apply appropriate modifiers for One or BOTH cover types.

 

the more I look at this, the more I think my position might be shifting.

 

I'm thinking, could I say to my opponent "no, you don't get both!" and back it up with a rule??  I'm not seeing that now...

[sharpobjects]

yep - the lack of the plus is important I feel, but doesn't cover the "in both hard and soft cover" issue.

 

other abilities would seem to stack - such as perfect camouflage on waldgeist and silurids - as they only have an effect if you are in cover in the first place.

 

 

Perfect camouflage has nothing to do with being in cover. The ability is based on if the Waldgeist or Silurid has activated for the turn. If the Waldgeist or Silurid was in cover and they have not activated yet then a model using an SH attack would be at a double negative twist. The Silurid in this situation would also benefit from its Silent ability.

 

With regards to the OP we have always played that you recieved the best cover affect from a piece of terrain but not both soft and hard. Although I too cannot find anywhere in the large book that states a single terrain piece can or cannot have both cover traits I also do not see any of the "Typical Terrain Pieces" detailed on page 41 as mentioning that those pieces have both cover traits. Each piece highlighted that has a cover trait has either soft or hard in their description. 

[Csonti]

This is a FAQ candidate for me.

[Dracomax]

If it is meant to stack, it's a FAQ candidate.

 

If it is not, then it is an errata candidate.

[Thaarup]

I think it is more of a common sense question? If a model is behind two pieces of terrain and both are hard cover nobody would think that they should get 2x hard cover. If one of the terrain types should be soft cover, then suddenly the model would be much harder to hit?

 

I Know the rulebook doesn´t explicit state that cover doesn´t stack, but it doesn´t say that it does either...so I would go with common sense and say no, cover doesn´t stack - otherwise multiple soft or hard cover should stack.  

[HalcyonSeraph]

I think it is more of a common sense question? If a model is behind two pieces of terrain and both are hard cover nobody would think that they should get 2x hard cover. If one of the terrain types should be soft cover, then suddenly the model would be much harder to hit?

 

I Know the rulebook doesn´t explicit state that cover doesn´t stack, but it doesn´t say that it does either...so I would go with common sense and say no, cover doesn´t stack - otherwise multiple soft or hard cover should stack.  

 

Its not a common sense question at all. Some games have degrees of cover, where being behind two walls is better than one. Others don't. Its not clear which this game is. 

 

You could just as easily say that its "common sense" that its harder to shoot someone through some trees and a wall than just one or the other. 

[Thaarup]

Its not a common sense question at all. Some games have degrees of cover, where being behind two walls is better than one. Others don't. Its not clear which this game is. 

 

You could just as easily say that its "common sense" that its harder to shoot someone through some trees and a wall than just one or the other. 

 

I guess I could have explained it better. I were thinking of commen sense of Malifaux rules. Normally if something work a specific way it is spelled out (like conditions with a +). If it is not mentioned then it doesn´t apply.

 

If what you suggest then we will have to add every type of cover, the amount and maybe even how "big" the different terrain types of cover are...Malifaux normally don´t work like that. It is either no cover, light cover or hard cover. Every type of cover gets a bit better for each degree or "level".

 

If we go the way of understanding the rules to add different kinds of cover types, then we should also add the same kind of cover if there are more of it (two walls better than one and so on). Which again leads to the size of the terrain area (4" of wood should offer more cover than 2" and so on).

[HalcyonSeraph]

I guess I could have explained it better. I were thinking of commen sense of Malifaux rules. Normally if something work a specific way it is spelled out (like conditions with a +). If it is not mentioned then it doesn´t apply.

 

If what you suggest then we will have to add every type of cover, the amount and maybe even how "big" the different terrain types of cover are...Malifaux normally don´t work like that. It is either no cover, light cover or hard cover. Every type of cover gets a bit better for each degree or "level".

 

If we go the way of understanding the rules to add different kinds of cover types, then we should also add the same kind of cover if there are more of it (two walls better than one and so on). Which again leads to the size of the terrain area (4" of wood should offer more cover than 2" and so on).

 

Well, no,  not really. There are only two types of cover, hard and soft. The question is not whether multiple pieces of terrain offer stacking cover, but whether hard and soft cover are two completely different effects that can both apply, or whether there is simply cover, with two possible traits. 

 

\/\/\/ Agree completely. I lean towards "it doesnt stack" but I think it is FAQ worthy.

[Dirial]

And that question is not explicitly answered by the rule book. I would play it as "cover, with two different descriptors for its protective value" and not distinctive effects but if that's correct should be addressed by some higher power.

[Tuttleboy]

Here's what the RM says about cover.

 

 

Cover

A model will gain the benefits of cover from a Projectile Attack when any LoS line between the Attacking model and the target can be drawn through any terrain with the soft or hard cover traits that is within 1' of the target model.

Terrain with the soft cover trait will grant soft cover which imposes a [minus] to the Attack flip of any [projectile] Attack Actions.

Terrain with the hard cover trait will grant hard cover which imposes a [minus] to the Attack and damage flip of any [projectile] Attack Actions.

 

Looks to me like you get both as long as you're within 1' of both types and any LoS line crosses both.

 

 

 

As a follow-up, how come I can't find the Malifaux symbols?

 

[necroon]

My group plays it as both when it comes up: typically when a model is behind Hard Cover in a Fog created by a Stitched, for example. 

[Morgan Vening]

From a previous thread on the subject. The use of the "or" in the Pg42 quote is the important one, as to whether it's inclusive or exclusive.

 

Pg.38, LRB, Projectile Attack Modifiers:  A model’s [gun] Attack flip receives [-] when attacking a model in cover.

Pg 42, LRB, Cover: 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 traits that is within 1" of the target model.

It seems like it's intended that you get "cover", and use the appropriate one. As both Soft and Hard grant the same penalty to hit, "cover" would only apply once. That's how I would interpret it, but I can see how it could be read otherwise.

[Kadeton]

I'd say it's actually the use of "the benefits of cover" as a phrase that's most important, but it leads to the same conclusion - having "cover" only gives a single benefit, and the nature of that benefit is determined by whether the cover is hard or soft.