PDA

View Full Version : Claiming Cover when the obscured portion is not in line of sight?



FearLord
02-22-2011, 04:21 PM
Interesting question came up in a game I was watching today - A model was shooting at a Warlock who was standing behind and slightly to the side, within an inch of a wreck marker so cover would have been granted.

However, Heavy warbeasts were completely blocking any line of sight to the wreck marker, but not the warlock - the edge of the base was still visible.

So the question was "Is it possible to stop a model from claiming cover by obscuring the cover granting terrain from the attackers line of sight with other models?" - I ruled that he could still claim the cover, mainly because it seemed too easy to exploit the other way - i.e blocking line of sight with your own models, specifically to stop an attacking model having any line that would pass over the cover, but it didn't seem clear cut to me from the rules...

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

leo_neil316
02-22-2011, 04:42 PM
So the question was "Is it possible to stop a model from claiming cover by obscuring the cover granting terrain from the attackers line of sight with other models?" - I ruled that he could still claim the cover,

You totally ruled correctly. Both from RaW and....

To rule it the other way would mean that you could make it easier to hit someone by putting a heavy warjack IN THE WAY of the shot. That'd just be silly.

'Well he's half hiding behind that building. So what I'll do is put a devastator over there so I can't see the building myself! Now he's easier to hit!'

Subhedgehog
02-22-2011, 04:42 PM
Aren't the cover rules a bit of an abstraction? (without the book in front of me) I think you've got the correct interpretation. If your base is partially occluded by cover, and you're within 1", you get cover...

Pyrodude32
02-22-2011, 05:06 PM
Wow that strategy never even crossed my mind...

Rules as Written seems to say that they would not get cover... If that's truly the case, it'll be in an Errata soon

Laughing Man
02-22-2011, 06:48 PM
What? No. RAW sez he gets cover.

Kevin B
02-23-2011, 02:18 AM
Well I was the attacker and normally I would say he got cover bonus. However I had no possable Los to the target where the Los passed over the cover - almost as if I had moved round the cover, hence why the question.

We're asking this for future reference than any other reason.

Kenton
02-23-2011, 02:46 AM
Well I was the attacker and normally I would say he got cover bonus. However I had no possable Los to the target where the Los passed over the cover - almost as if I had moved round the cover, hence why the question.

We're asking this for future reference than any other reason.

This case is a result of the simplistic way in which LOS and intervening model rules interact.

The key points are as follows.

1. LOS is affected by intervening models if they are of equal and larger size to the target and obscure any line drawn from base to base. In this case there is LOS.

2. Screening or cover is not granted by intervening models. Effectively this means that intervening models do not count for the purposes of determining cover.

3. Cover is provided if any of the LOS is obscured by terrain providing cover that is within 1" of the target model and in the LOS.

Following these assumptions/interpretations (and I appreciate that I can't quote rules on this) you should determine LOS taking intervening models into account. Then you should determine cover as if there were no intervening models (as they do not provide cover themselves) and then you proceed.

Thus the outcome is as the consensus suggests, in that the target does benefit from cover.

The alternative would be, in effect, to grant screening by intervening models. This has been explicitly removed in MK II.

It is Warmalogical in it's own way, just not intuitive.

MrChom
02-23-2011, 03:03 AM
RAW says no cover (no LOS passes through cover within 1" of the target). RAI is a totally different bag, though.

Iff
02-23-2011, 04:09 AM
RAW says no cover (no LOS passes through cover within 1" of the target).
Please quote this supposed rule that says that a LoS line has to pass through cover. I don't think it exists, no matter how assertive your statement is. The target would get cover, because a part of its base is obscured.

Kevin B
02-23-2011, 04:15 AM
To help understand what happened last night here is a link to a quick drawing of the set up with the red line showing the only available Los and the blue line going centre to centre.

http://twitpic.com/42twgz

As stated before main point was the only Los I could get wasn't obstructed by the cover.
Hope this helps.

Deranith
02-23-2011, 05:16 AM
A model within 1" of a terrain feature that obscures any portion of its base from an attacker can gain a concealment or cover bonus

LOS doesn't matter. If you can draw any line from one model to its target that crosses over a terrain object and the target is within 1" of the terrain object, it gets cover.

Cover does not get negated based on LOS, though if the model were out of LOS it would prevent the shot.

To apply it to that picture, draw a line from the right side of of each base, if it crosses over the wreck, the model gets cover assuming it's less than 1" from the marker.

MrChom
02-23-2011, 05:25 AM
Please quote this supposed rule that says that a LoS line has to pass through cover. I don't think it exists, no matter how assertive your statement is. The target would get cover, because a part of its base is obscured.

The's thing, though, no part of the model's base IS obscured by the cover as the cover itself can at no point be seen by the attacker. If the rule said "ignoring intervening models" then, yes, it would be obscured, however whenever the rulebook otherwise uses the word "obscure" or "obscured" it is talking in very specific terms about LOS.

Prime 57 for the "Any portion of its base" in regards to cover, and for an example of how oscure is used in relation to LOS I'll pick a random one and go for 44 where it talks about how things become obscure in relation to LOS.

TheUnknownMercenary
02-23-2011, 06:25 AM
When drawing Line of Sight you need to follow the steps on page 43:


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.
2. The line must not pass through terrain.
3. The line must not pass over the base of an intervening model that has a base size equal to or larger than Model B.
4. The line must not pass over an effect that blocks LOS like a cloud effect.


In step 2 you determine what terrain would obscure and if it would give cover or concealment.
In step 3 you determine what models would be intervening models.

Kenton
02-23-2011, 06:31 AM
This whole issue is the result of the way in which intervening models do or do not affect LOS.

It is clearly stated that intervening models do not provide cover or concealment.
The conditions under which LOS is affected by intervening models is clear.

However, it is assumed that this means that intervening models are ignored for the purpose of determining cover. I suspect that nobody will argue that this is not RAI.

If this assumption is false then the use of intervening models to negate cover is tantamount to reintroducing the whole screening issue (but in reverse). There are many ridiculous situations in this game but this one would trump all the others at this point.

Cloud-Gatherer
02-23-2011, 06:32 AM
When drawing Line of Sight you need to follow the steps on page 43:


In step 2 you determine what terrain would obscure and if it would give cover or concealment.
In step 3 you determine what models would be intervening models.

Oh man, it's almost like they put things in a specific order for a reason. :O

NmoLvr
02-23-2011, 06:40 AM
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.

Emphasis mine, chris.

Doesn't the bold part mean there is no cover in this case? If the wreck was not obscuring any portion of the target's base from the attacker, cover doesn't happen. If an intervening model is blocking LOS to the cover then the cover can't be obscuring anything because all LOS to it is already obscured.

Mod_Redphantasm
02-23-2011, 06:42 AM
The wreck is obscuring the base from the attacker. As related by Unknownmercenary, you determine whether terrain is obscuring before you determine intervening models.

NmoLvr
02-23-2011, 06:55 AM
Hmmm. I was sure he was making some kind of point there, but it was lost on me. :)

FearLord
02-23-2011, 10:28 AM
The wreck is obscuring the base from the attacker. As related by Unknownmercenary, you determine whether terrain is obscuring before you determine intervening models.

I don't read p.43 as solving this issue - it only helps determine if you have line of sight to a target.

It basically means that because the left most line in Kevin B's diagram meets all of these requirements, the attacker has line of sight.

The issue with cover is, far from choosing any infinitely thin line as the attack line, if any line that can be drawn between the 2 models crosses cover, cover is granted. This means a line drawn from the right side of the attacker to the target basically. This line would cross cover (and therefore obscure part of the base from the attacker), but it is already obscured by another model. The attacker cannot see the cover at all from his position...

If the step timing sequence on p.43 is important (and I'm not sure it is...) then same question, with the beast replaced by a cloud effect (step 4)...

NmoLvr
02-23-2011, 10:39 AM
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?43765-cover-within-1-quot&p=647860&viewfull=1#post647860

Not the same thing, I know, but I don't see a line from attacker to target that provides the target cover. I can't believe that the intervening model is simply ignored in this case. You'd have to be able to see through it, which the rules specifically state you cannot, in order to draw a line from attacker to target that put the covering feature an inch or less from the target.

I keep thinking 'along the line' when I see the picture linked to earlier and I don't see a line that provides cover.

FearLord
02-23-2011, 10:54 AM
I keep thinking 'along the line' when I see the picture linked to earlier and I don't see a line that provides cover.

Don't worry too much about the diagram - in the actual game, the wreck was a little closer - it would have given cover for sure if the heavy beast wasn't in the way. The question is only around whether the beast blocking the cover out completely would effect the situation. I don't think it would, but I'm interested to know whether or not this is based in rules or just because the alternative is too easy to break...

NmoLvr
02-23-2011, 11:07 AM
I understand.

I'm just saying that it seems to me a valid targetting line between attacker and target would have to cross the covering terrain in order for cover to apply. There is no such line.

The others are probably right from a rules balance standpoint, but as they are written at present I do not see cover. That's just me though. :)

Kevin B
02-23-2011, 11:45 AM
When drawing Line of Sight you need to follow the steps on page 43:
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.
2. The line must not pass through terrain.
3. The line must not pass over the base of an intervening model that has a base size equal to or larger than Model B.
4. The line must not pass over an effect that blocks LOS like a cloud effect.
In step 2 you determine what terrain would obscure and if it would give cover or concealment.
In step 3 you determine what models would be intervening models.

This is for line of sight and the check for terrain is if you are on the other side of a building and the like that will get in the wayof seeing stuff.*

*p57 for concealment and cover says:


A model within 1" of a terrain feature that obscures any potion of it's *base from an attacker can gain either a concealment or cover bonus

This is the problem, if I can't see the terrain feature that obscures... Due to the beast being in the way how can they get the bonus? *

RedWynd
02-23-2011, 11:51 AM
Do intervening models even block LOS to terrain?

As far as I know, a model can only be an intervening model if it blocks LOS to another model of equal or smaller base size. I don't think you can be an intervening model when determining LOS to a piece of terrain, and if not, then the attacker would have clear LOS to the terrain.

Due to normal LOS to the model already being determined, both the model AND terrain are within LOS and therefore the terrain provides cover.

NmoLvr
02-23-2011, 11:54 AM
Do intervening models even block LOS to terrain?

As far as I know, a model can only be an intervening model if it blocks LOS to another model of equal or smaller base size. I don't think you can be an intervening model when determining LOS to a piece of terrain, and if not, then the attacker would have clear LOS to the terrain.

Due to normal LOS to the model already being determined, both the model AND terrain are within LOS and therefore the terrain provides cover.

This is a good explanation. I can deal with this. :)

MindwormJim
02-23-2011, 12:06 PM
Well, you can't actually target terrain unless it's a structure. I can't imagine a situation where you would need LOS to anything if you weren't targeting it.

That said, I'd say that if cover-granting terrain is obscuring part of your base (and you're within 1" of it, as appropriate) you get cover. It doesn't matter if an intervening model is also obscuring the same part of your base.

Stevo
02-23-2011, 12:38 PM
LOS is not cited in the rules for Cover and Concealment. If LOS were necessary, the language in the rule would include LOS. If LOS is necessary for cover to exist, then you could conceivably use your own models to remove targets from cover by obscuring the LOS to the terrain that provides cover. That seems pretty terrible.

Tekanan
02-23-2011, 04:19 PM
Can someone perhaps draw a diagram of what the OP is referring to? I'm getting confused and would like to know further what the OP is trying to say.

juckto
02-23-2011, 04:59 PM
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a329/juckto/Warmachine/loscoverdiagram.png

amazonwarlord
02-23-2011, 07:00 PM
This is for line of sight and the check for terrain is if you are on the other side of a building and the like that will get in the wayof seeing stuff.*

*p57 for concealment and cover says:



This is the problem, if I can't see the terrain feature that obscures... Due to the beast being in the way how can they get the bonus? *

The beast (intervening model) is irrelevent .... The beast's presence does not make the line pass over or not pass over the covering terrain feature, nor does it make the terrain feature (in this case a wreck) go away. If when targeting, the line crosses the marker and that marker is within 1" of the base of the target, the target gets cover. If the line does not cross the wreck then the target does not get cover. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

ScottEBJJ
02-23-2011, 07:04 PM
There is no such thing as an intervening model in regards to terrain.

Much in the same way the line you use to determine LOS is not the line you need to use to measure range, the line you use for LOS is not the line you need to use to determine Cover.

An intervening model only blocks line of sight, the rules for determining cover do not mention anything about that line requiring clear LOS or free of intervening models.

jgerman
02-23-2011, 08:33 PM
An intervening model only blocks line of sight, the rules for determining cover do not mention anything about that line requiring clear LOS or free of intervening models.

The rules for determining cover don't mention anything about a line at all, they use a term that is undefined in the context of the rules: obscured.

RAW gives no answer to the OPs question as far as I can tell. I would think the correct interpretation is that you do get the cover, however as far as english is concerned you can get into illogical game states with that interpretation. It is just a game though and the simple interpretation works and is easy to follow.

Tekanan
02-24-2011, 03:19 AM
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a329/juckto/Warmachine/loscoverdiagram.png

I'd rule it as Target does not get cover. LOS is no longer obscured by the wreck due to the Heavy 'jack.


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

I resolved this using common sense as to what obscure means, with no offense intended to anyone here. I'd gladly retract my statement if an Infernal rules it the opposite. :)

Kurtjh
02-24-2011, 06:22 AM
I'd rule it as Target does not get cover. LOS is no longer obscured by the wreck due to the Heavy 'jack.

Following that logic ... would you agree that cover can therefore be ignored by simply blocking LOS to any cover granting terrain?
The situation in the diagram could be engineered deliberately as well by positioning one's own heavy in the right place.


IMHO - the heavy warjack does not completely block LOS, and is therefore not relevant (as that is it's only relevance), hence the target does get the cover bonus.

ScottEBJJ
02-24-2011, 06:55 AM
Again there is no within LOS requirement in the rules for cover.

There is no such thing as an Intervening Model to terrain as an Intervening Model must have an equal or larger base size to be an Intervening Model.

Tell me to those that seem to think there would be no cover, what exactly is the base size of terrain?

Kevin B
02-24-2011, 07:07 AM
In the case of the original post exactly 50mm as it was a wrecked jack so of equal size to the heavy beast. But that's just me having a small laugh.

What about if a target is at the end of a wall (or any similar liniar piece of terrain), the enemy is at 45 degrees to the target and wall. Normally we are all happy with the cover bonus. Going back to the question if the attacker can't see the wall and any available Los due to a jack is the cover bonus apply?I'm saying this as if the attacker was 90degrees to the wall (and with clear line of site now) would there be a cover bonus? No as all available Los to target don't pass through the cover.

Please note all my posts here are as devils advotate to discuss the point fully and not to just start a flame war.

amazonwarlord
02-24-2011, 07:07 AM
Tell me to those that seem to think there would be no cover, what exactly is the base size of terrain?

I am with you on your reading of the rules for cover, however, in this case the cover has a Large 50mm base size. The models between you and the target still do not make the cover granting +4 def from becoming soft and squishy or magically disappear. It is just behind a big moving object. One controlled by a player.

amazonwarlord
02-24-2011, 07:22 AM
Do intervening models even block LOS to terrain?

As far as I know, a model can only be an intervening model if it blocks LOS to another model of equal or smaller base size. I don't think you can be an intervening model when determining LOS to a piece of terrain, and if not, then the attacker would have clear LOS to the terrain.

Due to normal LOS to the model already being determined, both the model AND terrain are within LOS and therefore the terrain provides cover.

I also agree with this. Intervening models count only for target models. They mean nothing for cover.

garbon
02-24-2011, 04:24 PM
The rules for determining cover don't mention anything about a line at all, they use a term that is undefined in the context of the rules: obscured.

RAW gives no answer to the OPs question as far as I can tell. I would think the correct interpretation is that you do get the cover, however as far as english is concerned you can get into illogical game states with that interpretation. It is just a game though and the simple interpretation works and is easy to follow.

1) +1 to the "obscured is local and undefined" statement

2) I vote that if B obscures A and C obscures B, that B still obscures A - so cover still applies

3) There are two possible interpretations - I would pick the one that is less exploitable, i.e. cover still applies

Tekanan
02-24-2011, 09:13 PM
Following that logic ... would you agree that cover can therefore be ignored by simply blocking LOS to any cover granting terrain?

I agree and in some cases, only after taking volume size into consideration for LOS since when there's terrain fully involved, volume size is used for LOS purposes. I just don't believe is is as easily exploitable as it sounds because I have yet to come across such situation. In the situation as shown by the OP (which happened before if I'm not mistaken), me, my opponent and guys in my group simply say "no cover" and it was a mutual understanding. No question was even asked to begin with.


I can see the "no such thing as an intervening model to terrain" arguement and understand how strong it stands. From my perspective, "obscure" is the key word here in the ruling and open to the subject of interpretation.

IMO, we definitely need an Infernal for this.

Ger
02-24-2011, 11:31 PM
There seems to be some assumption as to what "Obscures" as a term means here. Namely that "Obscures" relates at all to the LoS rules. The LoS rules are to answer the question "Can this model see this model". It seems to me that cover can be decided utterly independent of this.

Here's my example. There is a medium based model T behind a 1.50" wall that is not very long. They are also within 1" of this wall.
Assuming Attacking model A is in such a position that a 2.00" wall and this 1.50" wall are between them and medium based model T. The 2.00" wall is tall and long enough to completely block the 1.50" wall from model A's LOS. However, only the 1.50" wall is within 1" of model T and thus eligible to give cover.

Why would the prescense of this other 2.00" wall blocking LOS have any effect on the 1.50" wall granting cover?

Kenton
02-24-2011, 11:56 PM
+1 to what Ger said. Especially this;


It seems to me that cover can be decided utterly independent of this.

Not being able to see the cover does not prevent the target from hiding behind it. Within the rules it is worth noting that the section on cover states that the requirement for cover is that it obscures the base from the attacker (full quote above, several times), it does not state ". . . and in LOS". Perhaps this is deliberate?

Ger
02-25-2011, 03:58 AM
+1 to what Ger said. Especially this;



Not being able to see the cover does not prevent the target from hiding behind it. Within the rules it is worth noting that the section on cover states that the requirement for cover is that it obscures the base from the attacker (full quote above, several times), it does not state and in LOS. Perhaps this is deliberate?

Yeah... Saying cover that isn't in LOS is excluded is an assumption that isn't supported by any wording in the rules.

For it to work you have to assume the two rule sets are meant to work together. When in fact they work independently quite fine and don't indicate they function concurrently.


-Are you determining if you can target a model? All right use LOS rules which have clauses for Terrian blocking LOS to a model and models blocking LOS to a model.
-Trying to decide what effects modify the attack roll? Okay, check the effects including cover and concealment.

I really don't see how you ever use LOS rules while checking effects that modify attack rolls. There is a specific set of circumstances when you do use them.

::EDIT::
I actually have a very simple break down of this
"Can a line between models be obscured by more then one thing"

Because really that's what this entire silliness is about. That once obscured the line between models stops being relevant.

Kevin B
02-25-2011, 05:21 AM
@Ger then you have missed the point of the whole post. Based on the drawings and description on the OP the attacker could never draw a line that would pass over the cover unless you ignore models in the way which contradicts the Los rules - if you don't have Los to the cover how can it "obscure"?

This is why we are asking.

Caeldan
02-25-2011, 05:47 AM
Okay. Trying to think this out here:
1. The most recent cover ruling states that if any line between attacker and target gives cover, target has cover.
2. We have a third model which is in the way of any lines which would grant the target cover.
3. Line of sight rules indicate you determine obscuring terrain before models.

This would seem to indicate that the cover granted by terrain would be applied before you determine that there's another model in the way, which means you would still keep cover in this instance.

Kenton
02-25-2011, 06:08 AM
Okay. Trying to think this out here:
1. The most recent cover ruling states that if any line between attacker and target gives cover, target has cover.
2. We have a third model which is in the way of any lines which would grant the target cover.
3. Line of sight rules indicate you determine obscuring terrain before models.

This would seem to indicate that the cover granted by terrain would be applied before you determine that there's another model in the way, which means you would still keep cover in this instance.

+1 again, incidentally this is what the Unknown Mercenary said much earlier in the post.

The rules do not say that LOS is taken into account when determining cover. As has been said, cover is determined before LOS. You then apply LOS to determine whether or not the shot can be made.

It is an assumption that 'obscure' relates to the LOS as determined by the LOS rules. There is no justification for this assumption within the written rules.

ScottEBJJ
02-25-2011, 07:06 AM
@Ger then you have missed the point of the whole post. Based on the drawings and description on the OP the attacker could never draw a line that would pass over the cover unless you ignore models in the way which contradicts the Los rules - if you don't have Los to the cover how can it "obscure"?

This is why we are asking.


Nothing blocks LOS to terrain. Intervening models interact with the target models base size, terrain is not a model. Nor does it always have a base size. Infact I think wreck markers don't have a base size, even if on a base.

You are attempting to insert rules that do not exist.

Murkhadh
02-25-2011, 07:10 AM
I "think" that according to the pictures above, if the attacker turned his facing to the left, so that the right most part of his front arc was facing up, you could deny cover. Going from an earlier ruling.

Kenton
02-25-2011, 07:16 AM
I "think" that according to the pictures above, if the attacker turned his facing to the left, so that the right most part of his front arc was facing up, you could deny cover. Going from an earlier ruling.

Whilst this is true I fail to see how it progresses the rule question.

YabaBaga
02-25-2011, 07:19 AM
The situation in the diagram could be engineered deliberately as well by positioning one's own heavy in the right place.

Or even worse, just rotating the attacking model so that the cover/obstacle is no longer in its front arc.

Murkhadh
02-25-2011, 07:19 AM
K scratch that, angle not quite what I thought it was when I put it into paint and drew lines.

Murkhadh
02-25-2011, 07:20 AM
Yea I was trying to say What yabaBaga above was, but when I tried to draw lines on the pictures myself I couldn't quite get the angle I thought.

Tekanan
02-25-2011, 09:10 AM
Just wanna rant abit and let this out of my chest.


IMO granting cover in the stated situation would really 'complicate' things. Reason: "obscure" isn't defined as properly as it should.

If I were to teach a newbie or having an arguement with a casual player on this issue, argueing that "obscure" isn't defined properly hence "intervening models are not considered when it comes to determining cover" sounds like a whole lot of semantics. I, for one, accept that while WM can be a complicated game, its basics aren't as it sounds to be. Most of the basics can be clearly explained without going into words details (i.e. explaining word-by-word and grammatical definitions like "if", "and", "or", etc). It reminds me of that article in BoLS where some WAAC players fall into this trap and is generally despised. Yes, keywords in arguements is necessary, but once you start quoting the webster's dictionary, I believe it is getting out of hand. I know people who do this and it is indeed annoying.

IMO, unless you are a robot, this issue is not easily exploitable as it seems. I foresee getting that "there's a majority of people here favouring that cover is given, hence an infernal is not needed" statement. You can call me stubborn, but I call myself a believer in simplicity. :)

NmoLvr
02-25-2011, 09:20 AM
I can see this one both ways. I've been swinging back and forth from reading the other posts here, but at present I'm back to thinking there should be no cover. If you can't see the cover granting terrain, I don't understand how it can factor in. I have a hard time accepting that you can see through an intervening model at one stage of the attack but not at other stages. You can either see through it or you can't IMO.

Either way, I'm expressing opinion. We've reached that point where everyone has said everything that can be said and we need some purple. :)

mikelizzio
02-25-2011, 11:51 AM
You totally ruled correctly. Both from RaW and....

To rule it the other way would mean that you could make it easier to hit someone by putting a heavy warjack IN THE WAY of the shot. That'd just be silly.

'Well he's half hiding behind that building. So what I'll do is put a devastator over there so I can't see the building myself! Now he's easier to hit!'

This. The very first reply to this thread got it right, and provided a great thematic reason. The target is more difficult to hit because he is hiding behind a wreck. Why would he become EASIER to hit just because you moved a warjack between the attacker and the target?

I'm surprised this debate carried on as long as it has. And everyone keeps ignoring the fact that the cover rules do NOT say anything about LOS. If you can draw ANY line from target to attacker that crosses a terrain feature within 1" of the target, the target has cover. Period. Argument over.

Just because you moved a Jack to block your view of the wall DOESN'T mean the target isn't still hiding behind it.

jgerman
02-26-2011, 07:38 AM
This. The very first reply to this thread got it right, and provided a great thematic reason. The target is more difficult to hit because he is hiding behind a wreck. Why would he become EASIER to hit just because you moved a warjack between the attacker and the target?

I'm surprised this debate carried on as long as it has. And everyone keeps ignoring the fact that the cover rules do NOT say anything about LOS. If you can draw ANY line from target to attacker that crosses a terrain feature within 1" of the target, the target has cover. Period. Argument over.

Just because you moved a Jack to block your view of the wall DOESN'T mean the target isn't still hiding behind it.

You are incorrect. Neither the cover and concealment rules, nor the terrain rules say anything about drawing lines. They both use the word obscure and in the case of the terrain rules don't say much at all about cover and concealment in regards to ranged combat.

Like I said before, I'd rule that cover is granted, but the opposite argument isn't without merit. As of yet no one putting forth the "drawing lines" argument has provided any page number in the rulebook where that rule supposedly exists. I'm curious where this rule is coming from, since it doesn't appear to be in the book at all, though it's certainly possible I'm missing it.

jonconcarne
02-26-2011, 10:27 AM
Like I said before, I'd rule that cover is granted, but the opposite argument isn't without merit. As of yet no one putting forth the "drawing lines" argument has provided any page number in the rulebook where that rule supposedly exists. I'm curious where this rule is coming from, since it doesn't appear to be in the book at all, though it's certainly possible I'm missing it.

Try here :p


When drawing Line of Sight you need to follow the steps on page 43:

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.
2. The line must not pass through terrain.
3. The line must not pass over the base of an intervening model that has a base size equal to or larger than Model B.
4. The line must not pass over an effect that blocks LOS like a cloud effect. In step 2 you determine what terrain would obscure and if it would give cover or concealment.
In step 3 you determine what models would be intervening models.

mikelizzio
02-26-2011, 10:38 AM
You are incorrect. Neither the cover and concealment rules, nor the terrain rules say anything about drawing lines. They both use the word obscure and in the case of the terrain rules don't say much at all about cover and concealment in regards to ranged combat.



I know the cover rules don't say anything about drawing lines. But they use the word "obscure." You need to draw a line between two things to see if something obscures one from the other. And since LOS is not used in the rules for determining cover, the fact that an intervening model blocks LOS to the terrain feature does nothing to change the fact that the terrain feature still obscures the target model. Is there a terrain feature between me and you? Am I within an inch of that terrain feature? Then I have cover.

I don't even think this is rules-interpretation on my part. The rules-as-written may not be worded as dummy-proof as some people would prefer, but with just a little closer look, they still declare that the model has cover.

FearLord
02-26-2011, 11:43 AM
The problem is, the drawing lines business for cover all comes from Infernal rulings. Therefore my understanding of cover is that it is based on line of sight (i.e that you determine if a model has cover if any line that could be drawn for line of sight crosses cover)... However, based on what has been discussed here, I've come to the conclusion that this isn't actually specified anywhere.

Instead, the rules only refer to "obscuring" the base which isn't defined in the rules, but can reasonable be estimated as concealing any portion of the physical base of the model from the attacker. I'm willing to believe that this should be interpreted as the cover granting terrain being physically between the attacker and the defender, regardless of line of sight (mainly because while "obscured" implies line of sight, it isn't actually determined in that way).

Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this issue.

jgerman
02-26-2011, 04:12 PM
Try here :p

Nope, that's for determining LOS not cover, and there are many posts in this thread opposed to removing cover that are pointing out that those aren't the same thing.

For instance here:


I know the cover rules don't say anything about drawing lines. But they use the word "obscure." You need to draw a line between two things to see if something obscures one from the other. And since LOS is not used in the rules for determining cover, the fact that an intervening model blocks LOS to the terrain feature does nothing to change the fact that the terrain feature still obscures the target model. Is there a terrain feature between me and you? Am I within an inch of that terrain feature? Then I have cover.

For which the answer is the terrain would obscure the model, but does not, because something else is. No matter which way you slice it the rules are hazy on this, it can easily be interpreted either way.

Again, I'd give the model cover, but don't pretend that this is an absolute interpretation and that those with a different opinion on it than you are idiots.

I'm going to step out of this now though, I can see both sides and without an official ruling I'll continue to play the way I have been, it's a corner case that won't occur very often.

ScottEBJJ
02-26-2011, 04:51 PM
For about the 10th time in this thread, Intervening Models do not block LOS to terrain.

For a model to be an Intervening Model it must be blocking a line to a model with an equal or smaller base size. Terrain is not ever a model, therefore you can not have an Intervening Model to terrain.

The rules are only getting hazy because people aren't reading the rules.

mikelizzio
02-26-2011, 08:35 PM
I'm going to step out of this now though, I can see both sides and without an official ruling I'll continue to play the way I have been, it's a corner case that won't occur very often.

The problem is this: if players really are able to deny an opponent the cover bonus by simply moving a large model into a position where it blocks LOS to the terrain, it won't be a corner case and will occur very often.

Luckily, there is no reasonable way to read the rules such that cover would operate this way, so we're all safe. You can not make the wall I'm hiding behind disappear by moving a heavy warjack in front of you.

Mantractor
02-26-2011, 10:46 PM
The argument in favor of denying cover this way is at best an attempt to abuse the English language and the rule itself to personal benefit. I wouldn't play with someone who tried to use word definitions to unwind the game instead of getting the skill to approach cover by conventional means.

That's just me though. I get annoyed when people dispense with combos in favor of exploiting errors or inconsistencies.