PDA

View Full Version : Cover and within 1"



Pages : [1] 2

tensteam
11-29-2010, 08:36 AM
Yesterday we had a lenghty discussion during a game where a model (yellow) was determined to have cover when attacked by another model (blue).
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/3311/example10.png

Line drawn from the attacking model passes through building, but along that line the distance to building is well more than 1". On the other hand the target model is still within 1" of the same building.

The rule says (Prime p. 58):
"A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rols."

The interpretion several players have is that yes, by reading the rule in fact it means the yellow model gets cover. It is both within 1" of terrain feature and the same terrain feature obscures a portion of its base.

What I'm going to argue here is the intent of the rule is "terrain feature" above refers to the particular one small part of the terrain that is between two models, not the whole big terrain piece. By that interpretation the model would not get cover, because from looking from the attacker along the green line the distance to the building is well more than 1".

To support my argument I'll present another example.
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/699/example2hk.png

Here again the yellow model is both within 1" of terrain feature and the same terrain feature obscures a portion of its base from attacker. The traditional reading of the rule leads to a totally absurd situation. Who would think the yellow model above should have cover?

Any thoughts?

Thunder_God
11-29-2010, 09:27 AM
What's this "should" word? ;)

If you define it as a single piece of terrain, in the semi-circle, then yeah, he has Cover.

You need to accept the game is about abstraction, and "physics" and "common sense" have very little to do with it, except perhaps for how to read a rule, in the linguistic manner. Though this forum is very good at showing you how one person's "common sense" is not another's.

blue loki
11-29-2010, 09:39 AM
Cover applies in both situations presented.

If you and your local group do not think that it should, then define the terrain such that it does not. Divide each piece into sections, etc...
Terrain definition is left largely up to the players, and should all be hashed out before a game ever begins.

NmoLvr
11-29-2010, 10:27 AM
There are two conditions to cover.

Is the model within 1" of a terrain feature?
Does the terrain feature obscure any portion of the model's base from the attacker?

If the answer to both of those is yes, the model gets cover. Nothing else matters.

In both of your examples, the (presumably Menite) model gets cover. Doesn't matter how weird the situtation is, both conditions for cover are met.

jking_3rd
11-29-2010, 10:42 AM
I would agree that diagram A does have cover by its proximity shown. Where as diagram B does not, not because the semi circle isn't one piece, rather the portion being used as cover doesn't obscure the base in any fashion. This is more of a "lets play fair" assumption.

I agree with the previous post that a semi circle like that should be sectioned.

NmoLvr
11-29-2010, 11:21 AM
I don't think the number of pieces in the semi-circle was the point.

I think the point the OP was going for is that the attacked model in that example doesn't seem like it should be getting cover because the attacking model isn't having any trouble seeing it, but per the rules it would because it meets the conditions.

Aetou
11-29-2010, 11:39 AM
As others have said, in the first example the model should receive cover and the argument that it shouldn't is basically being made on the basis of a poorly made/defined piece of terrain rather than on any actual rules point. The issue is with the semi-circle that is being defined as a single piece of terrain rather than anything else.

x3tsniper
11-29-2010, 03:32 PM
There are two conditions to cover.

Is the model within 1" of a terrain feature?
Does the terrain feature obscure any portion of the model's base from the attacker?

If the answer to both of those is yes, the model gets cover. Nothing else matters.

In both of your examples, the (presumably Menite) model gets cover. Doesn't matter how weird the situtation is, both conditions for cover are met.

I support this evil cygnar players post.

kantoboy
11-29-2010, 04:15 PM
think of the 1" rule as the cover being close enough that a target can quickly duck behind it. At least thats how it would make sense to me.

Kenton
11-30-2010, 01:18 AM
think of the 1" rule as the cover being close enough that a target can quickly duck behind it. At least thats how it would make sense to me.

Sadly rationalisation of this type rarely results in the correct game interpretation.

I believe that NmoLvr has the right of it.

Nightbringer
11-30-2010, 02:32 AM
Is anybody certain that the attacker has to draw LOS from its worst point? The attacker should be able have a clear view in picture 1 from the very left and you can choose the point to draw LOS from.

tensteam
11-30-2010, 02:40 AM
I could give you several other examples of real life battlefield terrain that could cause similar problems. Sure in theory it is possible to define everything before the game, but do you honestly think you would (or would like to) do so before every tournament game you are playing against someone not in your own gaming group? "This part of the rock obstacle is different terrain piece than this part and this part etc. etc."

So it comes down to the original intent. I'll repeat the main part of my original message.


What I'm going to argue here is the intent of the rule is "terrain feature" above refers to the particular one small part of the terrain that is between two models, not the whole big terrain piece. By that interpretation the model would not get cover, because from looking from the attacker along the green line the distance to the building is well more than 1".


It comes down to the clarification of "terrain feature". Is it a rules term? What is a definition of "terrain feature"? Do you really know what is the original intent of the rule? Of course common sense isn't the way rules are interpreted, but it is how the rules are normally designed to work. That leans to discard the common way read the rule. And would my interpretation hurt the game in any way? I think it would just work a lot better.

NmoLvr
11-30-2010, 03:00 AM
Is anybody certain that the attacker has to draw LOS from its worst point? The attacker should be able have a clear view in picture 1 from the very left and you can choose the point to draw LOS from.

Cover says if any part of the model's base is obscured by terrain. It doesn't matter that you can draw a line that isn't obscured. If you can draw one that is obscured, you've met 50% of the requirements for gaining cover.

Nightbringer
11-30-2010, 03:16 AM
Cover says if any part of the model's base is obscured by terrain. It doesn't matter that you can draw a line that isn't obscured. If you can draw one that is obscured, you've met 50% of the requirements for gaining cover.

I don't mind it being either way. But what you say ist not mentioned in the rules und is unclear. ANY PART of THE model's base is refering to the defender not the attacker.

Cheeslord
11-30-2010, 04:01 AM
I don't mind it being either way. But what you say ist not mentioned in the rules und is unclear. ANY PART of THE model's base is refering to the defender not the attacker.

It is mentioned in the rules exactly as posted by NmoLvr. However I do agree that the wording is ambiguous as it doesn't specify wether its any part of the target from any part of the attacker or any part of the target from all parts of the attacker. However the former interpretation is commonly used (and probably has been confirmed by Infernals in ages past)

back on topic, I agree that by RAW the defender gets cover both times, and it is unfortunate that if you want it to work differently in practice, every terrain feature other than area terrain needs breaking up into small chunks (not much bigger than a large base).

Mark.

NmoLvr
11-30-2010, 04:06 AM
What I said was a nearly direct quote of the rules.


A model within 1˝ of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls.

This is true in both of the examples presented by the OP. They both look funny, especially the second one, but that doesn't mean they don't both meet these criteria.

NmoLvr
11-30-2010, 04:10 AM
I could give you several other examples of real life battlefield terrain that could cause similar problems.

Real life has nothing to do with the game.


Sure in theory it is possible to define everything before the game, but do you honestly think you would (or would like to) do so before every tournament game you are playing against someone not in your own gaming group? "This part of the rock obstacle is different terrain piece than this part and this part etc. etc."

Yes, that is exactly what you do. You have to define terrain before the game starts, otherwise you won't know what to do when you come up on situations like this. Its part of the game. In fact, its in the rules:


Players must discuss the terrain setup and agree on the characteristics for different terrain features prior to deploying their armies. Decide which terrain features grant cover or concealment, which provide elevation and at what level, which are impassable, and so on. It is vital to understand the rules for all terrain features in play before the start of the game; developing the habit of discussing terrain before the game will help you avoid unnecessary disagreements and misunderstandings during play.


So it comes down to the original intent.

We don't deal with intent here, just the rules as they are written.

Sorry if this post seems direct. I don't mean to be rude, just running out of time and typing fast as a result.

Tekanan
11-30-2010, 04:12 AM
What I'm going to argue here is the intent of the rule is "terrain feature" above refers to the particular one small part of the terrain that is between two models, not the whole big terrain piece. By that interpretation the model would not get cover, because from looking from the attacker along the green line the distance to the building is well more than 1".


This is how people in my LGS have played it all this while. As much as I agree with your sentiments, I can't deny that the rulebook said as you quoted


The rule says (Prime p. 58):
"A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rols."


Therefore in both cases presented, I unfortunately have to agree that yes, yellow menite (come on, what else can it be? XD) does indeed get cover. However I can foresee that if Scenario 2 actually occurs and someone intends to claim cover, he'd be seen widely as being a not nice person.

ResurrectioN
11-30-2010, 04:42 AM
I've played like OP form start but seems I'm wrong.

Still this kind of problem can easely occur in all L shaped terrains.

You can even complicate things with simple linear obstacle
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/209/coverdza.jpg



In the end all it means that it's easier to get cover then in the way I've been playing it, where only part of terrain between models was relevant for potential <= 1" distance from it.

Cheeslord
11-30-2010, 04:48 AM
Therefore in both cases presented, I unfortunately have to agree that yes, yellow menite (come on, what else can it be? XD) does indeed get cover. However I can foresee that if Scenario 2 actually occurs and someone intends to claim cover, he'd be seen widely as being a not nice person.

So the defender should voluntarily choose to break the rules to their disadvantage (as I believe the cover bonus is not optional - you might be wanting to shoot one of your own models to trigger an effect!) in the name of "being nice"? - Then we have to come to an arbitrary decision about exactly how extreme the cover situation has to be before it becomes "un-nice" to claim it. Really, really that is something there should be a hard rule for instead, which there is - its the rules as written.

If you want to house rule it that the defender must be within 1" of part of the terrain that is actually blocking the LOS thats not unreasonable, but it is a house rule rather than an interpretation of the rules as written.

Also complaining during a game about someone being legitimately albeit "un-nicely" in cover sounds like a page 5 violation.

Mark.

Thunder_God
11-30-2010, 04:51 AM
1. You can't place terrain within 3" of other pieces, or shouldn't, which answers this - if it's all touching, it's all one piece.

2. Resurrection, that's not how it works, if I read it correctly.
If there's any part of my base you can't draw a direct line of sight to, and you're within 1", then you have cover. In your situation, the attacker can draw a line of sight to all parts of the enemy's base without going over the cover granting terrain.

Hm, this suddenly makes me re-think the first example in the OP... since the attacker can draw from its left side direct LoS to any parts of the enemy's base.
It refers to page 43, which talks about LoS, so treat it like a forest, and if you can get LoS to all parts of the enemy's base, then no cover.

ResurrectioN
11-30-2010, 05:10 AM
1. You can't place terrain within 3" of other pieces, or shouldn't, which answers this - if it's all touching, it's all one piece.

2. Resurrection, that's not how it works, if I read it correctly.
If there's any part of my base you can't draw a direct line of sight to, and you're within 1", then you have cover. In your situation, the attacker can draw a line of sight to all parts of the enemy's base without going over the cover granting terrain.

Hm, this suddenly makes me re-think the first example in the OP... since the attacker can draw from its left side direct LoS to any parts of the enemy's base.
It refers to page 43, which talks about LoS, so treat it like a forest, and if you can get LoS to all parts of the enemy's base, then no cover.


My example is same as 1st example in OP's post just looks bit more extreme as bottom line of L shaped terrain is lot shorter but its's the same thing.
There is obscured LoS line across terrain and red model is 1" from that terrain. That's it.

This is gonna bother my arcnodes a lot, but then again,m helps me annoy Cygnar and Legion so nothing is lost.

Thunder_God
11-30-2010, 05:11 AM
Well, as I said, I think it may not enjoy cover in the first example, unlike the second.. need to wait till I get home and get to see the book, rather than use the art-less pre-release PDF. Though I think all the examples there are sadly very clear cut.

ResurrectioN
11-30-2010, 05:15 AM
If you look at the drawing in the book even my (and OP's) original interpretation of rules is supported - i guess that's what was preventing us from realizing mistake.

tensteam
11-30-2010, 05:21 AM
We don't deal with intent here, just the rules as they are written.


If we deal with rules as written care to post the definition of "terrain feature" from the rules? It is not that clear. For you it clearly is the whole terrain piece. To me it is just the part that is between the two models. That's the point of this discussion.

And I have to agree with Cheeslord that not any rule should be up to players to decide if it is used, especially in tournament environment.

Thunder_God
11-30-2010, 05:28 AM
In a tournament, you can't place multiple terrain pieces closer than 3" to one another. That it's continuous would lead me to say, by way of elimination, that it's one piece. Prior to "making sure".

tensteam
11-30-2010, 05:30 AM
In a tournament, you can't place multiple terrain pieces closer than 3" to one another. That it's continuous would lead me to say, by way of elimination, that it's one piece. Prior to "making sure".
And Terrain piece = Terrain feature?

Yurimow
11-30-2010, 05:37 AM
I think the point is, that common sense makes people understand that the target gains cover, when the target model stays within 1" of the terrain feature along the obstructed lines. This leads to think, that the target model does not have cover in both images. Unfortunately, that's not what the rules say.
In both images we have the target within the terrain feature and some of the (infinite number of) lines between attacker and target obstructed by the terrain feature. So all conditions for cover are satisfied => target model has cover in both images.

ResurrectioN
11-30-2010, 05:38 AM
If we deal with rules as written care to post the definition of "terrain feature" from the rules? It is not that clear. For you it clearly is the whole terrain piece. To me it is just the part that is between the two models. That's the point of this discussion.


Natural and man-made objects on the battlefield are terrain
features. Warmachine Prime MK2, page 86

That's the only definition.
It deosnt really mean anything but doesn't define terain feature as peice of acctual terrain so, unfortunately, you always consider whole terrain rater than part of terrain between models.

Yurimow
11-30-2010, 06:37 AM
even though discussing what the difference between terrain feature and terrain piece might be interesting, someone made me notice something about cover that might be even more interesting: what does "partially cover" actually mean?

- does it mean that some of the possible lines between any points of the two bases are obstructed by terrain? => cover in all 3 images
- does it mean that there is no point on the attackers base from which you are able to draw unobstructed lines only? => cover in image 2 but not in image 1 and 3

I ran through the rulebook i could not find an answer. I guess an answer to this question might defintely answer the question of the OP.

Personally i think it's the first. Looking at the image on page 58 Prime MKII the defender has a point on its base, from which he has an unobstructed view to WG A. Though this might also be a coincidence.

Cheeslord
12-01-2010, 05:28 AM
even though discussing what the difference between terrain feature and terrain piece might be interesting, someone made me notice something about cover that might be even more interesting: what does "partially cover" actually mean?

- does it mean that some of the possible lines between any points of the two bases are obstructed by terrain? => cover in all 3 images
- does it mean that there is no point on the attackers base from which you are able to draw unobstructed lines only? => cover in image 2 but not in image 1 and 3

I ran through the rulebook i could not find an answer. I guess an answer to this question might defintely answer the question of the OP.
.

That appears to be a very good question. Its one of those that nobody seems to ask because everyone Knows What It means - even if some people know different truths to others.

i did a quick search and the closest answer I could get is this thread https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?15537-When-do-you-get-cover&highlight=cover

however this was not an infernal ruling just a more experienced player telling a less experienced player the answer. Personally I thought everyone went with the first interpretation (as listed by you), even though it does give silly cover bonuses sometimes. Then Thunder_God made a post coming in on the side of the second interpretation. Perhaps we need to start a new thread explicity stating this problem (which is slightly different to the OPs question anyway).

Thinking about this, the 3" rule makes it a bit of a pain if you want say a courtyard, castle or any other complicated set piece - the entire structure must be a single terrain feature, making some crazy cover rules for models fighting inside it.

Mark.

ResurrectioN
12-01-2010, 06:01 AM
That appears to be a very good question. Its one of those that nobody seems to ask because everyone Knows What It means - even if some people know different truths to others.

i did a quick search and the closest answer I could get is this thread https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?15537-When-do-you-get-cover&highlight=cover

however this was not an infernal ruling just a more experienced player telling a less experienced player the answer. Personally I thought everyone went with the first interpretation (as listed by you), even though it does give silly cover bonuses sometimes. Then Thunder_God made a post coming in on the side of the second interpretation. Perhaps we need to start a new thread explicity stating this problem (which is slightly different to the OPs question anyway).

Thinking about this, the 3" rule makes it a bit of a pain if you want say a courtyard, castle or any other complicated set piece - the entire structure must be a single terrain feature, making some crazy cover rules for models fighting inside it.

Mark.

Hah, as you an see I'm that "more experienced player" and by the most of the posts in this thread I was wrong on that one although with ~180 views on that topic and nobody bothered to correct me.

tensteam
12-01-2010, 06:53 AM
Hah, as you an see I'm that "more experienced player" and by the most of the posts in this thread I was wrong on that one although with ~180 views on that topic and nobody bothered to correct me.

Actually that topic was even locked by Infernals as like you gave the correct answer. And your correct answer was just what I've been saying here all the time...

I would be very interested to hear some Purple (or designer) thoughs in here. As Cheeselord said above all kinds of ruins etc. will give a lot more absurd situations. It isn't good for any game that there are rules that are not rational at all like the example 2 in my OP. And in this case there even is an interpretation that should work pretty well all the time.

Yurimow
12-01-2010, 07:03 AM
i would also like to know how well the topic closing infernal read ResurrectioN's answer.


If there exists a line between the attacker and the defender that passes over a terrain feature and part of that line from terrain feature to defender is <=1" (emphasis by me)

Resurrection says that the models has to be within 1" of the terrain feature along the obstructed line, but that's not what the book says. The book says just within 1".

If this was true, i mean the "along the line clause", there would be no cover in any of the three pictures.

NmoLvr
12-01-2010, 07:29 AM
Hah, as you an see I'm that "more experienced player" and by the most of the posts in this thread I was wrong on that one although with ~180 views on that topic and nobody bothered to correct me.

Nobody corrected you because you were right.

In the other thread, the terrain piece that the defending model is 1" from is a different terrain piece from the one between the attacker and defender. That makes it a different situation.

ResurrectioN
12-01-2010, 08:48 AM
Nobody corrected you because you were right.

In the other thread, the terrain piece that the defending model is 1" from is a different terrain piece from the one between the attacker and defender. That makes it a different situation.

The answer was right but reasoning behind it wasn't.

NmoLvr
12-01-2010, 09:23 AM
The answer was right...

This is the important part. :D

Pink Foam!
12-01-2010, 10:52 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but its kind of like the back strike rule; you have to be either completely in a models back arc to gain the back strike bonus, or you don't get it. How cover works is sort of the same, the attacking model either has a completely clear line of fire or part of the models base is blocked and it has cover, just like how a small part of an attacking models base being in a targeted model's front arc would deny a back strike.

joedj
12-01-2010, 05:22 PM
There are two conditions to cover.
Is the model within 1" of a terrain feature?
Does the terrain feature obscure any portion of the model's base from the attacker?

If the answer to both of those is yes, the model gets cover. Nothing else matters.

In both of your examples, the (presumably Menite) model gets cover. Doesn't matter how weird the situtation is, both conditions for cover are met.

I believe the above argument contends there are two different and distinct conditions (independent of each other) that require the cover bonus to be granted.

The rule says (Prime p. 58):
"A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls."

I would instead argue that both conditions must be met simultaneously.
I.e. To receive the cover bonus the model must be within 1" of the terrain FEATURE (Feature = specific component/section) providing the obscuration of a portion of its base!
[Note: If 'feature' does not mean a specific component/section , then it is a superfluous/unnecessary word in the rule sentence.]

Therefore I would contend that neither of the OPs examples would be logically 'worthy' (:p :D) of the cover bonus.

But if Infernals rule to the contrary, I'll be sure to abuse Janissa's and Gunnbjorn's Rock Walls to the maximum degree!!! :D

Orbax
12-01-2010, 05:47 PM
edit

I just reread the section and it says from the attacker. The terrain would have to, from the attackers perspective, block the base. The question is do you "see" from all of an attackers volume, or any available non blocked portion.

"A model within 1˝ of a terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker"

at the end of the day, mainly for ranged, it doesnt make sense that if you are naked at the end of semi circle I cant shoot you. This is moot for all melee terrain interference but if I was judge Orbax my ultimate ruling says that portion that is 1" away from you must also be the portion concealing your base.

*queue gavel*

interesting question though, definitely want to see the answer.

Orbax

mrwombat
12-01-2010, 08:15 PM
I.e. To receive the cover bonus the model must be within 1" of the terrain FEATURE (Feature = specific component/section) providing the obscuration of a portion of its base!
[Note: If 'feature' does not mean a specific component/section , then it is a superfluous/unnecessary word in the rule sentence.]

Terrain Features are defined in Prime on page 86. "Natural and man-made objects on the battlefield are terrain features." They mean it in the sense that they are a feature of the field, rather than describing a particular portion of the specific piece in question. The rest of your argument is correct, and exactly why people were suggesting that the second example is simply a poorly designed terrain feature. In the curved wall example, the models both meet the requirements for cover, where if the wall were split in quarters or even half, only the blue model would have cover.

NmoLvr
12-02-2010, 06:19 AM
I believe the above argument contends there are two different and distinct conditions (independent of each other) that require the cover bonus to be granted.

The rule says (Prime p. 58):
"A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls."

I would instead argue that both conditions must be met simultaneously.
I.e. To receive the cover bonus the model must be within 1" of the terrain FEATURE (Feature = specific component/section) providing the obscuration of a portion of its base!
[Note: If 'feature' does not mean a specific component/section , then it is a superfluous/unnecessary word in the rule sentence.]

Therefore I would contend that neither of the OPs examples would be logically 'worthy' (:p :D) of the cover bonus.

But if Infernals rule to the contrary, I'll be sure to abuse Janissa's and Gunnbjorn's Rock Walls to the maximum degree!!! :D

It looks to me like you agreed with eveything I said and then came to the opposite conclusion. In my post, I said that both of the conditions had to be met to get cover. That means simuntaneously like you said. In both of the OP's examples, the terrain feature that the defending model is 1" from IS the same terrain feature that is obscuring a portion of its base. This is why, in both of the examples, the defending model has cover.

KujakuDM
12-02-2010, 08:19 AM
so, much like melee, you do not have to measure the LOS and Range (in this case distance from terrain to the model gaining cover) from the same point.

DemonCalibre
12-02-2010, 10:48 PM
I think it works in the way that leads to silly situations

Why? because measuring to see if the model is within 1 inch of a line that is obstructed by the terrain is very hard to physically do(I know I have done it this way all the time), where as just checking if your within an inch, and seeing if it blocks, is much easier.

Though it will lead to silly situations. I would love for this to be addressed, but till then don't make any crescent shaped walls.

Valrus
12-05-2010, 09:10 AM
I'm surprised no one has read the section on Pg. 43 of Primal
"...choose an eedge of your models base and and edge of the other models base. For Each model, hold an object next to the chosen edge that is the height to determine its volume. If you can draw a line from the inside edge of the object next to your model to the inside edge of the other object that does not pass through a terrain feature, your model's LOS to the other model is not blocked by terrain."

Which would make the first example look like this:
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/The_Valrus/example10.png

That solves many of the weird situations. The second example is still one of those odd ones though. The third picture posted here, this would also negate any potential cover.

Thunder_God
12-05-2010, 09:16 AM
That's the question. No one is questioning you have LoS, so it's not "blocked". But is it "obscured" still?

For instance, if those models were closer to one another, the Menite would surely gain +2 DEF versus melee.

Valrus
12-05-2010, 09:27 AM
Sorry, I have to disagree that that is still a question. The rule clearly states that you can draw LOS from any portion of your base in your front arc, and if that line is not blocked by terrain, then the terrain is not in the way, or blocking, the model at all. Therefore it cannot be obscuring your base either, because its not considered to be in the way.

The models being closer to one another would totally change the angles, so yes, in melee he may in fact get the cover bonus. However, if that red line was only 2" long, he would not.

KujakuDM
12-05-2010, 09:53 AM
for most cases if terrain is even blocking a slight portion of los it is considered to be obscured.

Cardboard
12-05-2010, 12:55 PM
Go look at the picture in Prime where it shows how Cover works; it fairly clearly shows how you're wrong Valrus.

As is, the model gets cover due to how it is worded. Honestly, it's the lesser of the two evils in terms of figuring out cover, as this way is faster and situations where this happens aren't that common as opposed to how long it would take to do the 1" over the LOS method

Necra-Chi
12-05-2010, 01:17 PM
Are people saying that the shooter has to be able to see the whole of the target's base, from the whole of the shooter's base?

Well that's news to me.

tensteam
12-05-2010, 02:32 PM
As is, the model gets cover due to how it is worded. Honestly, it's the lesser of the two evils in terms of figuring out cover, as this way is faster and situations where this happens aren't that common as opposed to how long it would take to do the 1" over the LOS method
I honesty cannot see what is the problem using this 1" over the LoS method. If you'll have the same 1" melee gauge and you'll need to measure the distance to cover anyway I don't think it takes much more time.

What I'm wondering here is why this discussion keeps going. If everything is so certain as many people think why cannot some Infernal stop by and close the case? They could ask the designers what's the intention right?

TheUnknownMercenary
12-05-2010, 03:52 PM
The reason the Infernals do not stop by is becase when the forums changed over after MKII, it was made known that the Infernals would not be answering all the rules questions every single day. Instead we would be getting an update errata when it became available, which is what we have been getting. If you really want an answer to this question you can either PM an Infernal asking for an answer or email PP and ask them to look into it.

NmoLvr
12-05-2010, 04:39 PM
Sorry, I have to disagree that that is still a question. The rule clearly states that you can draw LOS from any portion of your base in your front arc, and if that line is not blocked by terrain, then the terrain is not in the way, or blocking, the model at all. Therefore it cannot be obscuring your base either, because its not considered to be in the way.

The models being closer to one another would totally change the angles, so yes, in melee he may in fact get the cover bonus. However, if that red line was only 2" long, he would not.

The word 'blocked' is used when you are determining whether or not you have LOS at all. In the example, the attacker's LOS is not blocked by terrain. It is obscured by terrain. There is a difference, and the difference is what grants the defending model cover in these examples.

Valrus
12-05-2010, 09:10 PM
You know that word obscured is really what the argument comes down to. I cannot find anywhere that defines what is meant by "Obscured by Terrain". I did find and quoted a rule that determines if terrain is blocking a base, which to me, if LOS is partially blocked by terrain, that would mean the target is obscured from the attacker.

That is the way I read it anyway. I have not been able to find anything else that mentions if any LOS is blocked by terrain then the model is granted cover/concealment.

tensteam
12-05-2010, 11:38 PM
The reason the Infernals do not stop by is becase when the forums changed over after MKII, it was made known that the Infernals would not be answering all the rules questions every single day. Instead we would be getting an update errata when it became available, which is what we have been getting.
Well we have for example Journeyman warcaster using focus to boost attack and damage rolls even though it is not possible if you stick to just RAW. It has never been errated either. That's one of the rules where there is a clear intention even though the rules do not express it like they should.

TheUnknownMercenary
12-06-2010, 03:31 AM
Well we have for example Journeyman warcaster using focus to boost attack and damage rolls even though it is not possible if you stick to just RAW. It has never been errated either. That's one of the rules where there is a clear intention even though the rules do not express it like they should.

And the Infernals did make a ruling on that to let us know that it was a cut and paste error. I didn't say that they never show up it is just that they very rarely show up anymore. Now what exactly does the Journeyman have to do with Cover?

SoulStryder
12-06-2010, 05:48 AM
Sadly, that looks to be the intention - the forest rules seem to verify it. Get your heel into a forest, and even if you're getting shot from directly in front and there isn't one twig between you and their gun, you get your Concealment. Likewise, in this case, if your big toe can't be seen by his non-gun hand you still get cover, because he can't see you from every possible angle of his volume. Seems silly, but there it is.

Kenton
12-06-2010, 06:19 AM
It's a direct function of requiring very simplistic rules in order to avoid exploitation by the WM/H game community (which is decidedly more prone to such activity than any other I have encountered).

Once you get used to the rules they are easy to follow, they just dont make visual or intuitive sense someof the time.

brotherscott
12-06-2010, 09:59 AM
I think the problem here is that common sense is not all that common.

I see the point of the question, and reading over the pertinent rules multiple times I see where the conclusion is drawn the way it is, but it doesn't make logical sense and could be subject to abuse by certain "that guy" players.

I think Page 5 rule 5 applies to this case:
"... Page 5 is not permission to be a jackass in the name of competition. It's not a shield to hide behind when you're playing like a sissified cheeseball, running down the clock, gaming a scenario, or rules lawyering your opponent to death. ..."

baddybadbad
12-06-2010, 10:40 AM
It's a direct function of requiring very simplistic rules in order to avoid exploitation by the WM/H game community (which is decidedly more prone to such activity than any other I have encountered).

Once you get used to the rules they are easy to follow, they just dont make visual or intuitive sense someof the time.

Exactly, we have to keep in mind that the rules need to be easy to use and follow even if they don't represent a real world common sense. We must also understand that wargaming terrain is an abstraction (i.e. when I have a heel on a forest template, I'm deep enough into a forest feature to gain the benefits/restrictions of said feature. I wouldn't assume that I have my heel in a wind row facing out into a farmers fresh plowed field expecting to be a hard target to hit...if that were the case then it is a special agreement on that piece of terrain prior to the start of the game). Movement is an abstraction (i.e. When is the last time you saw fighting forces stand still and wait for the opposition to make all the actions they are going to take?) Abstractions make the game run more efficient. Could we complicate the game with lot of real world interactions? Sure, but do you want to play the game or wade through more rules?

Ravir
12-06-2010, 11:27 AM
The combination of the two subset rules and appear to be clear to everyone, even those who are arguing with each other.
As quoted from Prime: "A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls."
1. The target must be at least partially obscured from the shooter.
2. The target must be within 1" of the obscuring terrain feature.

The question is, what does "Obscured" mean. This is not properly defined in the rulebook. There are two concepts that conflict with each other.
Concept A. The target must be obscured from ALL angles from the shooter. I call this "Point Arc Obscured".
Concept B. The target must be obscured from ANY angle from the shooter. "Full Arc Obscured"

Here are two identical examples, between the left and right sides. On both sides, the targets and shooters are within 1" of a linear obstacle, but are near the outside edge on both sides.
http://i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu97/phirewind/Hordes/2borX2bobscured.jpg

If you use Concept A, on the left, neither side is covered because an arc exists from a point on each model's front arc through which the opposing model is not obscured.

If you think of "obscured" as Concept B, on the right, both sides gain cover because a line exists that crosses the terrain feature. Similar to determining terrain interference for a charge, i.e. if you couldn't charge the target (without pathfinder or ghostly, etc) then it has cover.

At my LGS we use Concept A, "Point Arc Obscured". It eliminates funky propositions such as the first example shooting from the corner of a building, and is easy to explain to new players. The wide arc example would still grant cover, technically, but that's just one of those things that you have to live with.

This is one of those things that really should be defined globally, as it becomes an issue at wide-area tournaments where people of differing interpretations play each other. I had a similar problem at a tournament when an opponent had a different interpretation of the word "obstacle" vs "obstruction", and we both assumed that the other player had the same idea. At that point, one player always gets somewhat screwed, even unintentionally. It never pops up until it either makes or breaks one player's strategy, at which point a ruling is sometimes necessary to clarify the issue, and one player ends up saying "oh man, if I'd known that I never would have gone there". It's usually not even because one player was "playing it wrong", just a difference in interpretation.

I think I'm going to go through some earlier conversations, and take notes for the "Top Deck +1 Scroll of Clarification" for things like this, so at tournament time people from other meta can be sure to be on the same page from the beginning.

DarkLegacy
12-06-2010, 11:42 AM
How do you arbitrarily decide to ignore the line from the 90 degree point on the base (assuming 0 is straight forward on the model) to the opponent's 270 degree point (the one straight across or north of the 90 point) in Concept A? You seem to be ignoring rules rather than using them to prove the point.

Mod_Redphantasm
12-06-2010, 12:33 PM
I fail to see how this needs additional rules like "point arc obscured". If a line from my base to your base crosses an obstacle that you are within 1" of, you get cover, simple as that.

Kypt
12-06-2010, 12:45 PM
Are people saying that the shooter has to be able to see the whole of the target's base, from the whole of the shooter's base?

Well that's news to me.

Yup, that's exactly how it's defined (wasn't this way before)

tuttleboy
12-06-2010, 02:03 PM
Seems to me like some folks are forgetting that getting LOS and benefitting from cover/concealment are essentially 2 separate checks.

In the LOS check you just check to make sure you can draw a line from any part of the attacker's base to any part of the defender's base without anything interupting that line. If you can you have LOS.

After you do the LOS check you then check for cover/concealment. If the model having LOS drawn to it is within 1" of a terrain feature and has any line between the 2 bases obscured by the same terrain it then gets the +2 or +4 to defense for concealment or cover.

Ravir
12-06-2010, 02:09 PM
How do you arbitrarily decide to ignore the line from the 90 degree point on the base (assuming 0 is straight forward on the model) to the opponent's 270 degree point (the one straight across or north of the 90 point) in Concept A? You seem to be ignoring rules rather than using them to prove the point.

How do you arbitrarily decide to use the line from the 90 degree point on the base? That seems to be adding rules. Consider how you determine basic Line of Sight. Quoting from pg 43 of Primal: (emphasis mine)

"1. Draw a straight line from any part of Model A's volume to any part of Model B's volume that is within Model A's front arc."

This does not say from the forward-most point on the model, or the 90 degree point, or the closest point to the target. Any point.

Now look again at the rule for cover:
"A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls."

The definition for base clearance only applies to the targeted model. It does not specify the point of reference on the attacking model. This is the rule that some people appear to be reading:
"A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from [any portion of an attacker's front arc] gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls."

See the difference? The rule in the book does not state that you must test the "Full Arc" to determine if a model is obscured. This is the part where "interpretation" comes in. Some people think that's "obvious" that you use the full arc. That is an assumption, and is not stated in the rulebook. However, there is no direct evidence that it is an incorrect assumption. Some people think that it's "obvious" that since there is no stated point of reference, you use the exact same conventions that you use for determining Line of sight, intervening models, and every other rule for targeting, i.e. choose a point on the front arc of Model A, and determine if any point on Model B is obscured.


"Are people saying that the shooter has to be able to see the whole of the target's base, from the whole of the shooter's base?"
Necra-Chi

Yup, that's exactly how it's defined (wasn't this way before)

Where is it defined this way? I completely understand the idea of the "full arc" test, but I have not found any such definition in the rulebook. There is a clear lack of definition in the Cover rules as to how to determine the point of reference on the attacking model. Where no definition is given, it seems appropriate to fall back to the method for determining Line of Sight, which is any point, not the full arc. i.e. "if any point on Model A's front arc has an unobscured line of sight to all of Model B, then Model B is not obscured.

Even though our meta uses the any point test (and I think I've seen it used consistently at Gencon and Warmachine Weekend), I'm not exactly trying to argue that either method is supremely correct and unquestionable. I am merely attempting to define the core issue in question, and point out that neither argument seems to be inherently flawed. As such, it is in our benefit to understand (or develop) the precise wordings necessary to define the "correct" solution, and ask for an Infernal to deliver a ruling, so that we all play by the same rules.

So the core question for PP is: What is the point of reference on Model A when determining if Model B is in cover? Does the attacker choose a point on Model A's front arc from which to determine obstruction, or is it "if any portion of Model B's base is obscured from any portion on Model A's front arc?"

Mod_Redphantasm
12-06-2010, 02:16 PM
"A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from [any portion of an attacker's front arc] gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls."

That's pretty clear to me. The "any portion of an attackers front arc" is your test phrase. As long as any portion of his front arc is obscured from my defenders base by terrain, I gain cover.

All you have to do is draw a 1 base wide line from attacker to defender, as long as that line is clear of terrain the defender is near, he gets no cover.

Ravir
12-06-2010, 02:19 PM
"A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from [any portion of an attacker's front arc] gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls."

That's pretty clear to me. The "any portion of an attackers front arc" is your test phrase. As long as any portion of his front arc is obscured from my defenders base by terrain, I gain cover.

All you have to do is draw a 1 base wide line from attacker to defender, as long as that line is clear of terrain the defender is near, he gets no cover.

Right, but I was just pointing out that the [any portion of an attacker's front arc] part isn't actually in the rulebook. It's the lack of clear definition of the point of reference that causes different meta to interpret it differently.

Mod_Redphantasm
12-06-2010, 02:28 PM
Right, but I was just pointing out that the [any portion of an attacker's front arc] part isn't actually in the rulebook. It's the lack of clear definition of the point of reference that causes different meta to interpret it differently.

My mistake. I thought that was the rule being quoted.

Is this the wording in question:

A model within 1˝ of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker
gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls.

Because that says to me that as long as part of my base is blocked from LOS of the attacker by terrain, I get cover. I still think it's pretty straight forward. If you can see me, but the line is obstructed by terrain that I'm near (within 1") cover is granted.

DarkLegacy
12-06-2010, 02:32 PM
How do you arbitrarily decide to use the line from the 90 degree point on the base? That seems to be adding rules. Consider how you determine basic Line of Sight. Quoting from pg 43 of Primal: (emphasis mine)

"1. Draw a straight line from any part of Model A's volume to any part of Model B's volume that is within Model A's front arc."

This does not say from the forward-most point on the model, or the 90 degree point, or the closest point to the target. Any point.

Now look again at the rule for cover:
"A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls."

The definition for base clearance only applies to the targeted model. It does not specify the point of reference on the attacking model. This is the rule that some people appear to be reading:
"A model within 1" of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from [any portion of an attacker's front arc] gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls."

See the difference? The rule in the book does not state that you must test the "Full Arc" to determine if a model is obscured. This is the part where "interpretation" comes in. Some people think that's "obvious" that you use the full arc. That is an assumption, and is not stated in the rulebook. However, there is no direct evidence that it is an incorrect assumption. Some people think that it's "obvious" that since there is no stated point of reference, you use the exact same conventions that you use for determining Line of sight, intervening models, and every other rule for targeting, i.e. choose a point on the front arc of Model A, and determine if any point on Model B is obscured.



Where is it defined this way? I completely understand the idea of the "full arc" test, but I have not found any such definition in the rulebook. There is a clear lack of definition in the Cover rules as to how to determine the point of reference on the attacking model. Where no definition is given, it seems appropriate to fall back to the method for determining Line of Sight, which is any point, not the full arc. i.e. "if any point on Model A's front arc has an unobscured line of sight to all of Model B, then Model B is not obscured.

Even though our meta uses the any point test (and I think I've seen it used consistently at Gencon and Warmachine Weekend), I'm not exactly trying to argue that either method is supremely correct and unquestionable. I am merely attempting to define the core issue in question, and point out that neither argument seems to be inherently flawed. As such, it is in our benefit to understand (or develop) the precise wordings necessary to define the "correct" solution, and ask for an Infernal to deliver a ruling, so that we all play by the same rules.

So the core question for PP is: What is the point of reference on Model A when determining if Model B is in cover? Does the attacker choose a point on Model A's front arc from which to determine obstruction, or is it "if any portion of Model B's base is obscured from any portion on Model A's front arc?"

Without the rules implying the whole base, you choose a line, and I choose a line. You will always choose an line favorable for you, and I will always choose a line favorable for me. I'm fairly certain that choosing the method that almost always provides no cover will not be valid. The method that is the most forgiving is most likely true. To think otherwise limits the application of cover to having to be B2B with the cover.

Ravir
12-06-2010, 03:06 PM
My mistake. I thought that was the rule being quoted.

Is this the wording in question:

A model within 1˝ of a covering terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker
gains +4 DEF against ranged and magic attack rolls.

Because that says to me that as long as part of my base is blocked from LOS of the attacker by terrain, I get cover. I still think it's pretty straight forward. If you can see me, but the line is obstructed by terrain that I'm near (within 1") cover is granted.

Right, the key is, if LOS is "from any part of Model A's volume", and the attacker always chooses their own LOS, if it has an LOS that isn't blocked at all, then you get no cover. The defender doesn't get to choose an attacker's LOS. The question is, is "the line" you reference, a solid block that encompasses the whole of both models, or is it a Line of Sight that is chosen by the attacker?


Without the rules implying the whole base, you choose a line, and I choose a line. You will always choose an line favorable for you, and I will always choose a line favorable for me. I'm fairly certain that choosing the method that almost always provides no cover will not be valid. The method that is the most forgiving is most likely true. To think otherwise limits the application of cover to having to be B2B with the cover.

However, it still only takes a sliver of obstruction to count. I'm not saying that you have to be completely obscured from every point on the attacker's front arc. Just that the attacker chooses the point of reference on his model according to LOS rules, and if any part of your model is obstructed from that point of reference, then you gain cover. In my example image, if either models on either side were to step just a hair to the side towards the center of the obstacle, they would gain cover. Then, even from the outside edge of either model, there is no single point of reference from which one can gain a completely unobstructed line of sight to the whole of the other.
http://i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu97/phirewind/Hordes/obscured.jpg

Believe me, in play this does not make cover overly difficult to achieve. The attacker must have a line of sight from a point on his model's front arc that is completely unobstructed. Anyway, at least this should clearly define the opposing concepts of the point of reference question. Now to see if we can get an Infernal ruling.

Kypt
12-06-2010, 03:20 PM
I would personally love an infernal ruling. Since MK2 began I've been playing it if I can draw any line from my base to opponent's base that crosses terrain they gain cover. I've never liked it but I believe this to be the case. If not, I would like to be clarified by infernal to put this to rest.

Edit: Bleh I'm going home in about 20 mins to take a quick look at book.

vintersbastard
12-06-2010, 04:12 PM
After taking a look at the diagramm in Prime on p. 58, I'd lean towards the "if any line drawn between the bases crosses an obstacle, the model gains cover" position.
Taking the other stance would be too close a call for my liking in regard to Winter Guard A, which according to the text does receive cover.
(You need to draw the lines from the outer borders of the black circles, only then are the proportions retained.)

Ravir
12-06-2010, 04:49 PM
After taking a look at the diagramm in Prime on p. 58, I'd lean towards the "if any line drawn between the bases crosses an obstacle, the model gains cover" position.
Taking the other stance would be too close a call for my liking in regard to Winter Guard A, which according to the text does receive cover.
(You need to draw the lines from the outer borders of the black circles, only then are the proportions retained.)

Yeah, that's what I thought when I looked at the diagram in Primal as well. It's so close, it's hard to tell which version of "obscured" they might be using, as if it simultaneously supports/disproves both sides.

Here's another way to think of it, that kinda feels like it should be part of some sort of psych exam: Look at a nearby object that you can plainly see. (This assumes that you have two equally functioning eyes). Now cover one of your eyes with your hand. Can you still clearly see the object? Some will say "Obviously, I can clearly see it with my other eye." Others will say "Obviously not, one of my eyes is covered". As far as Warmachine goes, which one is "true"?

Now take that, and imagine your front arc as an infinite number of tiny eyes arranged along the edge. Now there are two statements that determine obstruction.
1. "One of my eyes can clearly see the entire model, there is no obstruction."
2. "One of my eyes can NOT clearly see the entire model, there IS an obstruction."
Now we just need to know which statement officially takes precedence.

Valrus
12-06-2010, 08:09 PM
Another way I look at it is Obscured could also mean the attacker does not have clear LOS the entirety of the defenders base. And the rules for determining that is pretty spelled out on Pg. 43.

If you change the text to read "If the attackers LOS to any portion of the defenders base is blocked by terrain, and the defender is within 1" of the terrain feature, then the defenders gains cover/concealment bonus". It's wordier, which is likely why they used the word Obscured, but it references, and uses the same terms as LOS, which eliminates confusion.

Think about it this way. Someone is standing around the side of a building and you are standing at the corner. If you poke your head out you can clearly see the entire person, while the spot you are standing in is still behind the corner, which would be your base. You can see exactly where they are, but they cannot see all of you.

baddybadbad
12-06-2010, 09:15 PM
Ravir, I don't see why this needs any ruling when it is clearly stated in the rule book. P.57 Primal MKII, "A model within 1" of a terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker can gain either concealment or cover bonus,..."

There is clearly no designation of front arcs or an attacker chosen point on their base. It just says "from an attacker". Remember in MKII, a model is defined by its volume P.43 Primal MKII. If someone can draw any line from the model's base to the attacker's base that goes through a terrain feature that grants a concealment or cover bonus, they get the bonus. This also works with model volume visible over the top of a wall (see Prime MKII P.45 LOS and Terrain). If a large base model is within 1" of a 2.5" high wall, the attacker still has LOS, but the large based model gets its concealment or cover bonus even though there exists a line that can be drawn from the attackers volume to the large based model's volume that goes over the wall without touching the wall. My only gripe here is that they should have used the word "volume" and not "base" in the concealment and cover rule.
Let Line of Sight rules handle what the attacker can see. Concealment and cover is a bonus for proximity to specific terrain features that obscure (hide) one model from another no matter how slight the amount obscured (for the sake of efficiency).

RContraPerp
12-06-2010, 10:26 PM
I would just like to comment that the fact that the target model in the OP's first example gets cover is no wonkier than the LOS rules or the disappearance of the ranged attack penalty for intervening models in MKII. One might even argue that it somewhat balances it.

Necra-Chi
12-06-2010, 10:33 PM
The reason I am surprised by other people's interpretation of the rule about what counts as obscured is that it doesn't make any sense from me.

A shooter does not SEE with his entire body. A model does not SEE with its entire volume or its entire base. It should just choose a point on its volume or base and then check if it can see the whole target. What you're telling me is that if lylyth leans over to one side of the volume that her base occupies and can see the whole ugly dire troll, the lot of him, next to that wall, that dire troll gets cover if she leans the other way and she can't see the whole of it. That's silly. The shooter is active, it would take the shot from wherever it has the best advantage.

I must add that this all gets even more complicated when you add intervening models, with either interpretation. Do you have to choose lines that pass through gaps in intervening models and then check if there is obstruction?

Pszito
12-06-2010, 11:30 PM
I'm going to be honest;
I don't get why this is a difficult interpretation. Nor do I understand why any gamer's imagination cannot conjure a reason as to why the chosen abstraction of reality functions the way it does. I've play tons of games in my day and the rule of thumb has always applied, no matter how detailed a system gets.

While we are simulating a battle here, it's rather absurd to imagine that anyone runs to a spot, fires off their attacks, then stands there and waits for his/her next 'turn'. These warriors are 'paused' in the middle of their continual actions to perhaps represent 'the moment the trigger's pulled'. Whether the moment in that paused action happens to coincide with a shooter barely rounding a corner of a building (ergo having no LoS prior to the split second at the end of their moment) or someone who's been camped behind a stone wall fence for the last minute, they both are still abstractions that result in a similar difficulty that has to be represented in game terms. PiP chose to ere on the side of caution and give it out generously (tho they got rid of screening models completely... can't win em all), I believe to keep it in line with an action-packed, rock-and-roll kind of reality structure. Let your imagination handle the justification with interpretive abstraction.

To bring it to a more rules based grounding:
The LoS check and cover check should not be confused. The cover check in question here references some unique terrain features to illustrate the 'absurdity' of a rules abstraction. All three of the above diagrams, as mentioned, provide cover as per RAW.

They are all one terrain 'piece/feature/obstruction' that 'obscures' any part of (although it only takes one check line to prove) the defenders/targets base, which is simultaneously within 1" of the defender/target. This is clear. The argument that drawing one clear line from any point on shooter's base/volume to it's target's (as per LoS check) and thus should check only based on that line is not how the rules define to make a proper check for obscurement/cover bonus. The main reason i believe they allowed for such a wide range of obstruction is that, unlike a concealment effect, you typically cannot stand 'within' a cover feature, thus granting that abstract leeway. They had to enable the application of cover bonuses or else it would be the most rare of cases that anything would benefit (and there would then be no point to such a rule, imho).

Again, if it is hard to see 'why' they are getting the bonus when the cover feature is not obscuring the check line within 1" of the target, use your imagination. The wall the shooter is looking over makes it an odd angle, kind of shooting down. The target hit the deck and you've got to stand up quickly, destabilizing your own shooting posture. Based on previous directional movement, the target may have just bolted out from behind the wall where you were previously shooting or conversely be diving in behind it, forcing a snap-jerk shot. Or maybe the shooter just dove behind and is returning fire blindly over the wall. It doesn't matter how your mind fills in the blank when it comes to explaining away the rules in reality, as said; reality has nothing to do with the rules.
I believe the rule here has been answered several times over now. Much like the concealment rules not making a terribly great amount of sense by reality's standards (my pinky toe's in the forest aoe and now i'm really hard to hit!!!), this rule is no different. It works the way it's described until written differently from the designers.

Necra-Chi
12-07-2010, 02:49 AM
All you're doing is arguing Intent for your interpretation of the rule, which is not clear. In primal the rules for concealment and cover are different with one talking about volumes and the other talking about bases!

I cannot see anything in the rule for cover that indicates that all lines between the base of the attacker and the target must be clear for the target not to get cover. The drawing is entirely unhelpful. Its like they were trying to show the very edge of the extent that model B could be to still claim cover.

Jaren
12-07-2010, 03:00 AM
I cannot see anything in the rule for cover that indicates that all lines between the base of the attacker and the target must be clear for the target not to get cover.

Nor can I. For the record, I've played as follows:

The attacker chooses a point in their front arc to draw LOS from, and they may choose to their advantage. If ANY line drawn from the chosen point to ANY point on the target's base crosses terrain, they gain cover. Call it Attackers Advantage, or whatever, but it makes sense to me.

EDIT: So, basically, I'm in the camp that plays Ravir's Concept A approach.

baddybadbad
12-07-2010, 07:55 AM
So basically the camp for the "Ravir Concept A" believes that the cover rule is not descript enough and that the image is not helpful to to support or clearly discredit "Ravir Concept A" so "Ravir Concept A" has merit? And for those following the "...obscures any portion of its base from an attacker..." despite the fact that is supported by both the images in Primal MK2 and Prime MK2 and it meets the requirements of the cover rule without rewording, need to accept that it may have been an oversight on PP's part because the "Ravir Concept A" makes more common sense? You do realize that with that kind of logic we could challenge every core mechanic of this game?
Yes, I've changed my mind. I thought that an official ruling wasn't needed for a rule I found clear and concise; however, anything that needs this much discussion to the intent of the rule does need clarification. I'm done here. I'll be waiting for the ruling.

FAL
12-07-2010, 10:01 AM
Funny, I realised how cover worked precisely only a month ago myself when I re-read Primal MK2 (though I did not realise the RAW-implications as pointed out in the first post).


I cannot see anything in the rule for cover that indicates that all lines between the base of the attacker and the target must be clear for the target not to get cover.

Check Primal page 58. The explanation beneath the picture tells Praetorian Swordsmen A gains Cover from the crates, yet it is possible to draw a clear LoS from the front arc of the Blitzer towards the Swordsmen.

Necra-Chi
12-07-2010, 12:08 PM
I had to get a steel ruler out to check that and even then it was so close to being obscured that I'm still not sure.

And if you take the rules in Primal word for word, only bases are used for cover, and volumes are used for concealment.

SoulStryder
12-07-2010, 12:39 PM
I always played it by "Concept A" myself, since I usually imagine LoS coming from one point (you know...the eyes...), but as per the rules right now I admit that was a mistake. It will make cover a little more prominent in games, but not so much so as to be a problem. If a ruling comes and says it's the "Concept B" way, so be it, but the wording seems pretty clear - I just wasn't focused on it enough on the first pass and was too eager to play a game to let something as trivial as this get in the way :P

DemonCalibre
12-08-2010, 07:28 AM
We have always played it as concept B.

DoktorVivi
12-08-2010, 08:11 AM
We've always played it as drawing a line from the point that obscures the bases, though that's because we were using 'common' sense and didn't read the rule on it thorougly enough to get the exact RAW.

I still prefer our method, whether it's RAI or not... even if it makes it harder for me to hide from Cygnar *shakes fist* :P

tensteam
12-21-2010, 02:41 PM
Wohoo! Based on a reply from Macallan (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?43765-cover-within-1-quot&p=647860&viewfull=1#post647860) this has been resolved and as far as this non-native English speaker understands both of the original examples give no cover. A really good ruling, thanks!

ResurrectioN
12-21-2010, 02:59 PM
Praise Lord-a!
Rejoice!

jonconcarne
12-21-2010, 03:02 PM
Ravir's diagrams weren't talked about in that thread, but I'm assuming that Concept B (where if you gain cover if any one line grants it) rather than Concept A (where you don't have cover if they have LOS to all of your base from one point of their base) is the correct version still.

Kypt
12-21-2010, 03:17 PM
Ravir's diagrams weren't talked about in that thread, but I'm assuming that Concept B (where if you gain cover if any one line grants it) rather than Concept A (where you don't have cover if they have LOS to all of your base from one point of their base) is the correct version still.

Yup, he answered that question in a different thread here (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?43766-cover-partially-cover&p=647858). For those not wanting to go to link:


If any line gives cover, you have cover.

ResurrectioN
12-21-2010, 03:18 PM
Yup, you only need one line from any part of A to any part of B to cross obstacle and B to be 1" from obstacle along that line to gain cover.

EDIT: Kypt jumped in.

jonconcarne
12-21-2010, 03:20 PM
Yup, he answered that question in a different thread here (http://www.deviantart.com/#/dkdywx). For those not wanting to go to link:

ahh, cool, thanks! That's what I get for not monitoring the rules' forum closer.

Ravir
12-21-2010, 09:19 PM
Hooray for rules rulings! Even though it's not the method we'd been using, as I said I'm all for a global common understanding of the rules so that we all expect the same effects when we meet in a tournament. So, for those of you who are visual learners:

http://i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu97/phirewind/Hordes/cover_ruling.jpg?t=1292994633

Even though there is a "point of LOS" between A and B where B is not obscured, the fact that ANY line is obscured grants B cover, since it is within 1" of the obscuring terrain along the line of obstruction (x).

Even though C is technically within 1" of the terrain feature (z), it is not within 1" of the feature along the line of obstruction (y), so it does not gain cover.

And yes, for those of you with precise spacial orientation skills, the best-case scenario for line of obstruction (y) between A and C would have been a few degrees sharper towards the center of C, but I didn't feel like re-doing the entire image and I'm pretty sure this gets the point across. ;)

Mike8fingers
12-22-2010, 08:34 PM
Would this ruling also go for Concealment as well?

Loki77515
12-22-2010, 08:50 PM
Would this ruling also go for Concealment as well?
Concealment does not require your base to be obscured from your attacker, so no. This applies only to terrain pieces and how they grant cover.

Menoth's Bishop
12-22-2010, 11:02 PM
Ravir, i have been playing the way you just described, but in that case for "C" if the terrain feature does not provide cover, it probably blocks line of sight (thinking of it as a hill or an object with the sufficient hieght). If it's a wall, in sounds fair for me.

vintersbastard
12-23-2010, 01:42 AM
Would this ruling also go for Concealment as well?

If you're referring to the concealment rules on p. 57 of Prime, then yes, as the wording is the same.

Note though that there are other ways to gain concealment (e.g. forests) which work differently.

ResurrectioN
12-23-2010, 01:53 AM
Concealment does not require your base to be obscured from your attacker, so no. This applies only to terrain pieces and how they grant cover.


A model within 1˝
of a concealing terrain feature that obscures any portion of
its volume (p. XXX) from an attacker gains +2 DEF against
ranged and magic attack rolls. Co

You could have terrain piece which is living hedge so it's not "tough" enough to provide cover.
You were probably thinking about forest which have their rules.

bouncymischa
12-23-2010, 07:30 AM
You could have terrain piece which is living hedge so it's not "tough" enough to provide cover.
You were probably thinking about forest which have their rules.

In one of the past Call to Arms leagues, there were "hedgerows" that had this rule (providing Concealment to models with part of their base obscured, as opposed to cover).

Presumably, you could expand this ruling to apply to any situation where a terrain piece has a rule that provides a bonus to a model with part of its base obscured from the attacker.