PDA

View Full Version : A cover debate I have heard about recently



Pages : [1] 2

DarkAlliance
05-25-2011, 03:02 AM
I have recently been told about a discussion relating to cover. This apparently centered around positioning an attacking model so that when it shoots, it can see the target model but not the cover it is hiding behind.

I have searched through to page 13 but cannot find the discussion, and as I don't know what the title of the discussion was, can anyone be so kind as to give me a link to said discussion and any official associated outcome.

Thank you.

Thenmy
05-25-2011, 03:08 AM
Seriously dude, I searched the rules forum for threads with 'cover' in the title, and this (https://privateerpressforums.com/search.php?searchid=1087658) was the result.

juckto
05-25-2011, 03:29 AM
I dunno what you're trying to link to Thenmy, because that takes me to "Sorry - no matches. Try different terms"

@OP. What you want is here:
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?53616-Claiming-Cover-when-the-obscured-portion-is-not-in-line-of-sight

DarkAlliance
05-25-2011, 03:35 AM
@Juckto: thanks buddy.

edit: I have read that now. So has there been an Infernal ruling?

Ignacious
05-25-2011, 05:27 AM
No REAL Infernal ruling, UnkownMercenary's post leads me to think it WOULD get cover, and the majority of people in the thread seem to agree, but I agree, enough dissenting votes to warrant wanting a purple post.

(No I didn't mean you RedPhantasm :P )

DarkAlliance
05-25-2011, 06:07 AM
OK thank you for your help.

electrosis
05-25-2011, 06:47 AM
That thread made me laugh. If I'm hiding behind a wall and you stick your thumb in front of your eye and block the wall from your vision are you magically going to ignore the wall because you cant see it anymore. I know the argument was a bit more involved than that but seriously the logic was badly flawed. If your own guy is standing in front of you your arc for firing is still just as small as if you were trying to hit the part sticking out from behind the cover.

The purple post should be:

Really? .........no seriously guys really?

Ignacious
05-25-2011, 07:23 AM
While I wholeheartedly agree with you electrosis, I have to state again, that maybe it's just a bunch of RAW rules lawyers, but there is (apparently) enough of a dissenting voice to warrant an Infernal blatantly saying "no". Last thing I want to do is get to a tournament where someone tries to abuse this and the judge happens to agree with him.

I will state, however, I understand that Infernals are busy, especially after an errata. So no (major) rush guys :)

~Iggy~

DarkAlliance
05-25-2011, 08:12 AM
While I wholeheartedly agree with you electrosis, I have to state again, that maybe it's just a bunch of RAW rules lawyers, but there is (apparently) enough of a dissenting voice to warrant an Infernal blatantly saying "no". Last thing I want to do is get to a tournament where someone tries to abuse this and the judge happens to agree with him.

I will state, however, I understand that Infernals are busy, especially after an errata. So no (major) rush guys :)

~Iggy~

This is exactly why I have started to look into this.

We have the UK Masters in 2 weeks time, and a month later I am running the European Team Event and I would like some kind of definitive answer beforehand if at all possible.

Macallan
05-25-2011, 08:17 AM
Please someone draws a picture where it is "obvious" that cover should apply and where nonetheless the opposite can be argued because of facing.

Macallan
05-25-2011, 08:18 AM
I dare ask for a second one where the cover would be denied by an intervening model.

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 08:31 AM
Please someone draws a picture where it is "obvious" that cover should apply and where nonetheless the opposite can be argued because of facing.

http://www.gamestlouis.com/saultydog/LOS.jpg

NmoLvr
05-25-2011, 08:33 AM
Check the link that juckto posted above and look at post #29 in that thread.

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 08:34 AM
Check the link that juckto posted above and look at post #29 in that thread.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a329/juckto/Warmachine/loscoverdiagram.png

adding the images here for completeness

rydiafan
05-25-2011, 08:37 AM
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a329/juckto/Warmachine/loscoverdiagram.png

Models do not block LOS to terrain, this is 100% incorrect.


http://www.gamestlouis.com/saultydog/LOS.jpg

This, however, is exactly the issue.

Serrin
05-25-2011, 08:42 AM
@electrosis: I see where you're coming from, and its a only natural that, when there is a rules dispute, people will try to find an answer by using "common sense" in how things work out in the real world. This attempt is just plain false. It doesn't work. Why? Because the most important thing a rule does is to ensure that the game works, is balanced and makes fun. And if the designer wants the game to be intuitive, then he should probably design most of the rules in a way that they "somehow" are corresponding to the real world. But this is only a secondary goal.
Now, have a look at Warmachine and explain me: Why can a small based model see a large based model over intervening small based models, but the large based model cannot see the small based one? That does not make sense in terms of reality, but it does make sense in terms of "gameplay", because big models have big guns and small based Warcasters die fast. Therefore I think your posting is inappropriate.

Concerning the question of DarkAlliance, the true posting with the answer has not been given yet. Its this one: What I can't see does not bother me (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?48692-When-is-a-model-obscured&p=683116&viewfull=1#post683116).

Actually, I think we need this whole cover issue in the errata, because its really hard to understand. As far as I know, there are three issues:

a) The issue above with a model turning around, not seeing the cover any more and thus not granting cover to another model. This issue has been ruled in the link that I've given above.

b) The issue whether a model has to be just up to 1" apart from the cover, or if this distance has to be along the line from model A to B. This issue has been ruled here: 1" must be along the line (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?43765-cover-within-1-quot&p=647860&viewfull=1#post647860).

c) The issue whether a model that intervenes with the cover so that model A cannot see the cover any more will result in model B gaining or not gaining cover. This has not really been ruled out. Its in the thread that juckto posted: Intervening models and cover (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?53616-Claiming-Cover-when-the-obscured-portion-is-not-in-line-of-sight).

The first problem with the rules is that when reading about cover and concealment on p.57 there is basicly only talk about whether terrain obscures any portion of a models base from an attacker. Now for some people it might be obvious to look at the LOS rules on p.43 in order to determine how exactly it works, but for other people it isn't. Its written nowhere that these rules confer to LOS in any way. And when looking at LOS on p.43 there is nothing mentioned of "obscuring".

Issue b) is quite clear and the ruling is fine.
But I'm not really satisfied with issue a) and c). In both cases the "purple guys" argued with the LOS rules. One time there was no cover (issue a) because model A could not see the cover, and the other time (issue c) people are quite sure that there is cover, even when model A cannot see the cover due to an intervening model. And yes, there are intervening models because were just arguing with LOS rules. So, in both cases model A cannot see the cover, but the result is different.

Well, I hope for an errata which extends the rules on p.57 with the following sentence at the end:
In order to determine whether a terrain feature obscures model B from model A you have to find a line from the base of model A to the base of model B that passes through that terrain feature. Ignore intervening models or other terrain features. Model B must be within 1" of that terrain feature along that line in order to receive cover or concealment!

Yes, I know my ruling is different from the ruling of issue a), but I like it better that way... ;p

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 09:05 AM
Additionally when you stack issue B with issue A you get a even worse possible situation. I actually think ruling B from your list (one of the lines drawn must be less than an inch from the cover) is the way it should be. However I feel pretty strongly that LOS when determining cover should be from total volume to volume. Here is a situation of issue B and issue A together that really gets my feathers ruffled. Because that line is more than an inch to the part of the volume within the front arc of model A model B isnt going to get cover

http://www.pwn4g3.org/images/removecover.png

rydiafan
05-25-2011, 09:09 AM
Additionally when you stack issue B with issue A you get a even worse possible situation. I actually think ruling B from your list (one of the lines drawn must be less than an inch from the cover) is the way it should be. However I feel pretty strongly that LOS when determining cover should be from total volume to volume. Here is a situation of issue B and issue A together that really gets my feathers ruffled. Because that line is more than an inch to the part of the volume within the front arc of model A model B isnt going to get cover

http://www.pwn4g3.org/images/removecover.png

Holy heck, that's insane.

Fryerdan
05-25-2011, 09:15 AM
I gotta say this is reaching for shenanigans. You determine LOS "Yep got him by a sliver" okay you can shoot. Determine cover, "Looks part of his base is covered from mine by terrain that provides cover" He gets it. Plain and simple!

Unless I remember this wrong nothing about cover includes LOS its all on intervening terrain between bases.

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 09:19 AM
Holy heck, that's insane.


it gets even worse when you start moving the attacking model to more obtuse angles so he has a better view of the back of model B


I gotta say this is reaching for shenanigans. You determine LOS "Yep got him by a sliver" okay you can shoot. Determine cover, "Looks part of his base is covered from mine by terrain that provides cover" He gets it. Plain and simple!

Unless I remember this wrong nothing about cover includes LOS its all on intervening terrain between bases.

You need to investigate the LOS rules closer and the rulings that have come through this forum. Its not quite as cut and dry as you thought.

Zizzlebit
05-25-2011, 09:20 AM
Shouldn't the intent of cover be from the targets perspective. I mean essentially your saying that if you can't see it than it doesn't exist. Also just because your shooting past the wall doesn't mean the wall doesn't exist anymore. I think this is a common sense issue versus a rules lawyer issue. I would rule that in both examples the model gets cover.

Fryerdan
05-25-2011, 09:23 AM
Regardless, the people doing this should be ashamed for rules munchkinry. The I-don't-see-it-so-it's-not-there is a total shenanigan and totally outside of the spirit of the game. If this worked, you could almost always negate concealment by using two large bases to laser point at your target if this was possible.

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 09:27 AM
Regardless, the people doing this should be ashamed for rules munchkinry. The I-don't-see-it-so-it's-not-there is a total shenanigan and totally outside of the spirit of the game. If this worked, you could almost always negate concealment by using two large bases to laser point at your target if this was possible.

There is no "if"

This is the current ruling. This is how it currently works. I hate it as much as the rest of you, but its been ruled on to work this way from what i have read.

read these threads that are both about the same basic issues:
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?57778-Linear-cover-and-corners-Does-it-stop-counting-as-cover

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?48692-When-is-a-model-obscured&p=683116&viewfull=1#post683116

Ignacious
05-25-2011, 09:54 AM
As I'm looking at it maxsterling, your 1st pic shows a situation where cover WOULD be granted, as if B is even a LARGE based model, at least half of the base is behind the cover, which means less than 1" showing, which means that the tangential line between A and B still is within 1" of the cover granting terrain, so cover is granted.

Extrapolating from there, if in fact turning your facing to "ignore" the terrain would have to be a rather extreme case, where at least half of a large base model, or indeed the vast majority of a small based model, was in view beyond the cover for the line being drawn parallel from the front arc line (which I would assume is what you would be doing to achieve the rather cheezy result from turning in such a manner) means that you can see enough that it would make sense for cover to not apply.

I won't be able to draw graphs until I get home, work comp blocking stuff...and stuff.

~Iggy~

silverpuppy
05-25-2011, 10:01 AM
While im all for clear rules and black and white understandings. This is clearly a bunch of B.S.! There is clearly intent to gain a specific game mechanic for a defending model. If people TRULY think that this rule should work this way...... well I now know why I dont go to cons and DONT play against any of the players that would use such tactics to gain an "UNFAIR" advantage by exploiting what they will defend as RAW. You can argue your case to your blue in the face, but simply put there is just times where I cannot believe that people see this as more then just a GAME, and as a GAME it should be played in a fair and sportsman like manner. Rules Lawyer-ing the game to its core removes the fun and this is a PRIME example.
Now to defend the my position. Melee attacks require LOS to the target, BUT then the range measured from the attacker to the defender is not required to be measured from a point that has LOS from attacker to defender. why in the world should ranged attacks be any different?

vintersbastard
05-25-2011, 10:13 AM
Melee attacks require LOS to the target, BUT then the range measured from the attacker to the defender is not required to be measured from a point that has LOS from attacker to defender. why in the world should ranged attacks be any different?

Because Macallan (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?43765-cover-within-1-quot&p=647860&viewfull=1#post647860) said so?

silverpuppy
05-25-2011, 10:27 AM
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?57778-Linear-cover-and-corners-Does-it-stop-counting-as-cover

Post number 28
seems to imply that post 18 cannot be possible to ignore LOS per the ruling in that post

jandrese
05-25-2011, 10:30 AM
Edit: Nevermind, I mistook "defender" for designating the attacker/defender relationship, not for the name of the model.

silverpuppy
05-25-2011, 10:31 AM
I slightly misspoke in the linked thread. I never got back to it as none challenged what I said. But, to be very specific, the line does not have to start in the front arc. It has to end in the front arc.

this is mcallans words i even just cut and pasted it from the linked thread above post #26

these two instances shown have now both been disproved

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 10:34 AM
I slightly misspoke in the linked thread. I never got back to it as none challenged what I said. But, to be very specific, the line does not have to start in the front arc. It has to end in the front arc.

this is mcallans words i even just cut and pasted it from the linked thread above post #26

these two instances shown have now both been disproved

The line does not have to start in the front arc it has to end in the front arc.. in both of my images i have provided that line, both of my images are still valid.

j78
05-25-2011, 10:39 AM
trying to sort through this is ........fun

the two images in post #15 in this thread, are there rulings or are they up in the air?

Serrin
05-25-2011, 10:42 AM
Guys, if you're speaking about starting and ending lines, would you please add if you're starting the line at the attacker or the defender? Maybe you're thinking the same but you just see it from another perspective? Because otherwise noone will ever understand what you're both talking about. ;)

silverpuppy
05-25-2011, 10:44 AM
but you ONLY show the front arc for the attackers benefit, NOT the target. the targets LOS can start in the back arc of the attacker and then end in his front arc

Ignacious
05-25-2011, 10:45 AM
maxsterling, in your 1st example the model B cannot possibly be far enough (right) for the line being drawn to be further than 1" away from the terrain, so cover is granted. In order for cover to not be granted the model B would have to be large, and even at that point more than half of his base would have to be (right) of the edge of the terrain. At this point, less than half is "behind cover", AND its large, so it not benefiting just makes sense, there is a lot of it showing to shoot it. For a small based model its even more extreme, for the line to be more than 1" away, the model would have to be almost entirely outside of the terrain.

Honestly, I agreed with alot of people when I first read these, I started imagining wild scenarios. But geometrically, all of them are impossible. If indeed it DOES negate cover, it makes perfect sense because so much of the model is showing, its almost as if it isn't behind cover to begin with.

~Iggy~

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 10:52 AM
but you ONLY show the front arc for the attackers benefit, NOT the target. the targets LOS can start in the back arc of the attacker and then end in his front arc

because the attackers LOS is all that matters when determining cover.. defenders LOS means nothing, he could be facing the opposite direction showing his back arc to the attacker.. Model A is the attacker in both diagrams


maxsterling, in your 1st example the model B cannot possibly be far enough (right) for the line being drawn to be further than 1" away from the terrain, so cover is granted. In order for cover to not be granted the model B would have to be large, and even at that point more than half of his base would have to be (right) of the edge of the terrain. At this point, less than half is "behind cover", AND its large, so it not benefiting just makes sense, there is a lot of it showing to shoot it. For a small based model its even more extreme, for the line to be more than 1" away, the model would have to be almost entirely outside of the terrain.

Honestly, I agreed with alot of people when I first read these, I started imagining wild scenarios. But geometrically, all of them are impossible. If indeed it DOES negate cover, it makes perfect sense because so much of the model is showing, its almost as if it isn't behind cover to begin with.

~Iggy~

You do not seem to understand how LOS works and how cover works. Please go back and read the LOS rules and rules for cover as both of your posts have been completely incorrect and do not even pertain to what we are talking about.

LOS is traced from any part of the attacking model to any part of the defending model that is in the attacking models front arc. For a model to gain cover his volume must be obscured from the attacking models LOS where that line crosses the terrain within one inch of the defending model. To quote Macallen "The model must be within 1" of the cover-providing terrain feature along a line that provides it cover."

Edit: im not arguing "my interpretation" here, at this point i seem to be educating you guys on how its been ruled. I wished it worked closer to the way you guys think it works but it doesnt. I desperately want it to though.. im here presenting the ridiculousness of it in hopes that it will be changed.

silverpuppy
05-25-2011, 11:02 AM
If in the example the defender warjack was turned 180 degrees to make his front arc directly at the winter guard model would he recieve cover or not?

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?48692-When-is-a-model-obscured&p=683116&viewfull=1#post683116


the image is on post #8

silverpuppy
05-25-2011, 11:03 AM
Cover would become too rare. If you were allowed to chose only one line (remember they are infinitely thin), then if I can draw one line from the corner of my front arc to a sliver of your base between 2 walls you do not get cover.

Too difficult to A) measure. B) prove and C) resolve without argument. The rules for cover/concealment are the way they are for a reason.

Serrin
05-25-2011, 11:08 AM
@silverpuppy: No cover for the Winter Guard. Read post #9 in the same thread. There it is ruled by Macallan.

blitzmonkey
05-25-2011, 11:11 AM
Use the most recent ruling.

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?57778-Linear-cover-and-corners-Does-it-stop-counting-as-cover&p=804412&viewfull=1#post804412

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 11:12 AM
If in the example the defender warjack was turned 180 degrees to make his front arc directly at the winter guard model would he recieve cover or not?

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?48692-When-is-a-model-obscured&p=683116&viewfull=1#post683116


the image is on post #8

No he would not gain cover because no line crosses the cover when determining LOS

http://www.pwn4g3.org/images/Cover2.png

Ignacious
05-25-2011, 11:15 AM
because the attackers LOS is all that matters when determining cover.. defenders LOS means nothing, he could be facing the opposite direction showing his back arc to the attacker.. Model A is the attacker in both diagrams



You do not seem to understand how LOS works and how cover works. Please go back and read the LOS rules and rules for cover as both of your posts have been completely incorrect and do not even pertain to what we are talking about.

LOS is traced from any part of the attacking model to any part of the defending model that is in the attacking models front arc. For a model to gain cover his volume must be obscured from the attacking models LOS where that line crosses the terrain within one inch of the defending model. To quote Macallen "The model must be within 1" of the cover-providing terrain feature along a line that provides it cover."

Edit: im not arguing "my interpretation" here, at this point i seem to be educating you guys on how its been ruled. I wished it worked closer to the way you guys think it works but it doesnt. I desperately want it to though.. im here presenting the ridiculousness of it in hopes that it will be changed.

I'm not disputing the ruling or the rules in general. I'm disputing your example of how it could be abused. Whichever line on that 1st pic is the LOS being drawn, cover is granted. If its the red, it DEFINITELY passes within 1" of the terrain. If the grey, I can mathematically prove one of two things. 1) The line is within 1", or 2) the line is further away than 1" but the model is more than half unobscured by the terrain so therefore according to rules AND common sense, easy to shoot, no cover.

Unless I'm DRASTICALLY misunderstanding Macallan's post, Your first pic grants B cover from A. Even in your quote of him and your independant post you state "For a model to gain cover his volume must be obscured from the attacking models LOS where that line crosses the terrain within one inch of the defending model." and from Macallan "The model must be within 1" of the cover-providing terrain feature along a line that provides it cover." Both of those statements hold true as stated, or indeed, the model is exceedingly out of cover.

~Iggy~

EDIT: It DID just occur to me, that we could have two different definitions of the Macallan quote. I'm reading it as if the LOS is within 1" of the terrain, cover. I think you are reading, that the line has to actually be drawn OVER the terrain that the model is 1" away from. If that is the case, and it is ruled that way, then the only way to have cover is to not have LOS. Please tell me I'm wrong and this is just a geometrical disagreement...

silverpuppy
05-25-2011, 11:18 AM
looking over the sheer page after page of linked posts and on and on i sadly can see where this is going and can see how the LOS can be manipulated to make the cover vanish. since this is the rules forum i would simply state that if this comes up for anyone, who is playing someone jocking the rules in such a way simply disagree with them he has LOS in such a manner and then "dice off" the decision as you now have a chance "jockey" the rules back in favor of logic over rules lawyering :)

appologies maxsterling for not looking into the extensive amount of links before beginning my debate

Serrin
05-25-2011, 11:25 AM
@Ignacious: I think the way it is meant is: If you can find a line from the attacking models front arc that moves over a terrain feature AND ends in base contact with the defending model AND the distance from the terrain feature's end to the defending model is at max 1" large along that line, then the defending model has cover / concealment.
So it doesn't matter if the model is at max 1" near the terrain feature with any part of its base, it matter if it is at max 1" away from the terrain feature along that given line!

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 11:27 AM
appologies maxsterling for not looking into the extensive amount of links before beginning my debate

Dont feel bad, i have been watching this particular ruling for months now, read each of those threads as they came up and delved into this problem a lot. I have (for the most part) silently watched it develop. Its a mess, with lots of posts asking about it, and lots of cross referencing.. I know its not easy to follow.

Ignacious
05-25-2011, 11:29 AM
If you can find a line from the attacking models front arc that moves over a terrain feature AND ends in base contact with the defending model AND the distance from the terrain feature's end to the defending model is at max 1" large along that line, then the defending model has cover / concealment.

Ok on that first point, do you mean literally through the terrain? because then, again, that would be that in almost every situation in order to have cover, the attacker would have to have NO LOS.|

~Iggy~

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 11:31 AM
Ok on that first point, do you mean literally through the terrain? because then, again, that would be that in almost every situation in order to have cover, the attacker would have to have NO LOS.|

~Iggy~

Any line from the attackers line of sight to the defenders volume that is in the attackers front arc.
So technically there are an infinite number of lines going from the base of the attacker to each point of the defenders volume that is in the attackers front arc.. give me just a sec and ill create a diagram

As promised:
http://www.pwn4g3.org/images/LOSVolume.png

Serrin
05-25-2011, 11:39 AM
@Ignacious:
For LOS it is: Find a (meaning you need just one and have LOS) line from Model A's front arc and volume to model B's volume that basicly does not go through anything.

For Cover / Concealment it is not so clear because... well you could just read my post #16 in this thread. Anyway, for cover / concealment part of the defending models base must be obscured from the attacking models base. How can we find out if this is true? We find a (meaning again that one line is enough) from Model A to B that goes through a terrain feature (and the 1" story of course).

This means that a model can and will have LOS to another model and the other model will have cover. Both lines are different lines out of the infinite amout of lines between both models!

Ignacious
05-25-2011, 11:55 AM
Right, as per your post, if the cover granting terrain is within 1" of the line you draw, then it has cover. In maxsterling's drawing, the line drawn HAS to be within 1". In order for that line to be further than 1" on a small base model, the model would only have 4.6mm actually obscured, so I think it SHOULDN'T have cover then. Large base could have as much as 24.6 obscured, but then its still mostly viewable so again, why should it have cover.

The funny thing is I'm agreeing with you on everything BUT you single example.

~Iggy~

silverpuppy
05-25-2011, 11:58 AM
ok now im really seeing the obscurity of the LOS rule...... saving the drawings in posts #40 and #46 goes far in illustrating how the rule works.
Thanks for taking the time to draw out a template that can be used to show the area in which a LOS line can be drawn.

in short and to help understand this more completely, so long as the point of the line being used to determine if a model has cover/concealment is located on the target model and in the attacking models front arc THEN the point on the attacking models base can be located anywhere on the model (front or back arc)? do i have this correct yet? :)

silverpuppy
05-25-2011, 12:03 PM
ignacious, im pretty sure your refering to the volume being obscured and correct me if im wrong but i think there is no set volume that must be obscured to get the advantage of cover or concealment. just any portion of the model and you get the advantage of the cover or concealment

Ignacious
05-25-2011, 12:11 PM
It only has to do with volume because that's in direct relation to the line's distance to terrain. What I'm saying is, Under the vast majority of the circumstances in which this ruling can be abused, there will be a good portion of the model visible, so I don't feel it's an "abuse" since most of the volume is not obscured.

I'm not trying to say that the volume is necessary, but that it will follow due to the geometry of it all, so at that point, who cares? Most of it is visible anyway, so its not like its a huge deal RAI or "in real life" kinda way, PLUS they had to position a model all hella kinds of awkward.

Again, I'm agreeing with the ruling and all the LOS rules and Cover rules, I'm disagreeing with a specific example of "abuse" and stating that I think it won't be as big a "what the frack" as people are thinking. I'm pretty sure under every single example people can think up, either A) There actually IS still cover, or B) It not having cover is completely explainable rationally.

All this would be much easier to explain with models...

~Iggy~

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 12:14 PM
Right, as per your post, if the cover granting terrain is within 1" of the line you draw, then it has cover. In maxsterling's drawing, the line drawn HAS to be within 1". In order for that line to be further than 1" on a small base model, the model would only have 4.6mm actually obscured, so I think it SHOULDN'T have cover then. Large base could have as much as 24.6 obscured, but then its still mostly viewable so again, why should it have cover.

The funny thing is I'm agreeing with you on everything BUT you single example.

~Iggy~

not within 1 inch of the line... the cover must be within 1 inch of the target ALONG the line of sight.. so the line of sight itself cannot be longer than an inch between the cover it crosses and the defender

Edit: there are plenty of diagrams of what im talking about in the posts that have been linked.. here is another

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5577245109_a1398ff19b_z.jpg

Serrin
05-25-2011, 12:24 PM
Here is a picture with all three issues that I see. Have a look at my post #16 in this thread. I hope I got it right.

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m494/Serrin77/los_cover-1.jpg

Ignacious
05-25-2011, 12:26 PM
Ok, so as I'm understanding it, once the line "crosses" the terrain, not actually going over it, but where if you moved it laterally it would be connecting with the terrain, the remaining length of the line must be less than 1"?

Also, as there are an infinite number of lines, who decides on the line in use? Attacker or Defender? Or is it if ANY line can be found, then it has cover?

~Iggy~

Creaux
05-25-2011, 12:26 PM
In case C, as understand the issue, cover isn't gained because models do not block line of sight to terrain.

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 12:28 PM
Here is a picture with all three issues that I see. Have a look at my post #16 in this thread. I hope I got it right.

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m494/Serrin77/los_cover.jpg

your diagram in case a is not correct because your bottom pink LOS is going to a portion of the defenders volume which is not in the front arc of the attacker and the line is also originating in the front arc.. it can originate from any part of the base

edit: added black front arc line and two green lines showing the possible edges of lines of sight

http://www.pwn4g3.org/images/los_cover.jpg

Serrin
05-25-2011, 12:42 PM
Thanks maxsterling, I got that wrong and edited my posting above. But to be honest I don't understand why the line can start from anywhere. I think I'll stop posting because it seems I don't understand it as good as I thought :/
Edit: The bottom green line is what I don't understand in you picture. Does it have any relevance for LOS or cover?

joedj
05-25-2011, 12:45 PM
Interesting!
A) Rotating an attacking model to 'not see' the Cover terrain obscuring a target model (base RAT 5 vs base DEF 12 = 7 to hit)
is NOT the same as
B) Forfeiting movement and Aiming to attack the target model with Cover (base RAT+Aim 7 vs base DEF+Cover 16 = 9 to hit)

I'm fine with this as the final ruling IF it becomes COMMON KNOWLEDGE quickly. I don't like being the only one playing the advantage of 'obscure' rulings. Of course I don't like not using my knowledge of rules/model position advantages either.

Reminds me of the first time I found out shooting an opposing Leader model causes Field Promotion, and my models can then walk away from the Promoted without incurring Freestrike(s)!

Runewyse
05-25-2011, 12:55 PM
Also, as there are an infinite number of lines, who decides on the line in use? Attacker or Defender? Or is it if ANY line can be found, then it has cover?

This is my thinking when trying to come up with a solution that works for me. Before the forum ruling that attempted to define obscured to only include cover that is 1" along the line of attack, none of these situations was a problem. Determining LOS was on the attacker to prove, using the LOS rules. Determining concealment or cover was on the defender, needing to show any portion of its base was obscured from the attacker. LOS used a line. Cover and concealment did not. Two separate events. Whether or not there was LOS to the terrain or through intervening models, no matter the facing, had no bearing on cover and concealment. RAI-wise, I could 'duck' one inch no matter if the attacker was shooting at me in the open, around a corner, or just a sliver around large base 2.2 inches away from him, if there was cover to 'duck' into, I could claim it.
The newer ruling on cover being determined along a line of LOS by the attacker mucks up the rules on LOS and Cover and Concealment as written. People have interpreted it as a change to LOS rules and not a change to Concealment and Cover. It takes away the defender having any say, and tries to roll Concealment and Cover into LOS, which I believe is incorrect. Even if the attacker is only shooting me out of the corner of his eye (facing), I'll 'duck', even into cover it cannot see.

BTW, on a side note, anyone else notice that concealment requires a portion of your volume be obscured and cover (plus the main paragraph of Cover and Concealment, and the example) say portion of your base?

Serrin
05-25-2011, 01:19 PM
@Runewyse: I think that the "1 inch idea" itself is not bad. But the way it was resolved by mixing LOS and Cover / Concealment did cause this issue.
Think of it: How did you determine whether part of your base was obscured by terrain as the defender? You probably drew an imaginary line from base to base. Now, the only thing you have to clarify in the rules is that the 1" has to be along that line, and not just from base to terrain. Finished.

Runewyse
05-25-2011, 01:39 PM
Think of it: How did you determine whether part of your base was obscured by terrain as the defender? You probably drew an imaginary line from base to base. Now, the only thing you have to clarify in the rules is that the 1" has to be along that line, and not just from base to terrain. Finished.

I would agree if the rule for the imaginary line was from any part of the attackers base of the defenders choosing, regardless if it is the line used to get LOS (which is different cause of front arc and other blocking reasons) or not. Two separate lines, one for LOS for the attacker, chosen by the attacker, and one for cover, chosen by the defender, would work; some would say the RAW don't allow for two lines, I am saying LOS and Cover and Concealment should be two different things.

And yes that's how I imagined determining cover, and the rule that it has to be within an inch is in the rules (Winter Guard C), but why do you get to decide the line?

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 01:45 PM
I would agree if the rule for the imaginary line was from any part of the attackers base of the defenders choosing, regardless if it is the line used to get LOS (which is different cause of front arc and other blocking reasons) or not. Two separate lines, one for LOS for the attacker, chosen by the attacker, and one for cover, chosen by the defender, would work; some would say the RAW don't allow for two lines, I am saying LOS and Cover and Concealment should be two different things.

And yes that's how I imagined determining cover, and the rule that it has to be within an inch is in the rules (Winter Guard C), but why do you get to decide the line?

your making it way more complex than it needs to be, there is only one small change that needs to be made in the rule contained within the book.
You draw a line from any point of Model A's volume to any point of Model B's volume to a model that is in Model A's front arc. The line does not have to go through the front arc, only that Model B is in some way in Model A's front arc.

so instead of the lines going to a point in the front arc they can go to any point on a model that is within the front arc of the attacking model

Valander
05-25-2011, 01:50 PM
your making it way more complex than it needs to be, there is only one small change that needs to be made in the rule contained within the book.
Actually, it doesn't require a change to the book at all, because it is as written:


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.

The colors show you how to pick the two end points for the line you draw. The portion of model b's volume that you draw the line to does have to be in the front arc (which is what Macallan means when he says "it must end in the front arc"), but that line does not have to start in model a's front arc.

Edit:
You say,

so instead of the lines going to a point in the front arc they can go to any point on a model that is within the front arc of the attacking model
That does not jive with either the rules as written, nor with what I see in the posts by Macallan, unless I'm missing something subtle. If I am, please quote something stating that the rules in the book have been overridden, because I do not see anything indicating that from an Infernal.

Dominar Eeyore
05-25-2011, 01:59 PM
Actually, it doesn't require a change to the book at all, because it is as written:



The colors show you how to pick the two end points for the line you draw. The portion of model b's volume that you draw the line to does have to be in the front arc (which is what Macallan means when he says "it must end in the front arc"), but that line does not have to start in model a's front arc.

Edit:
You say,

That does not jive with either the rules as written, nor with what I see in the posts by Macallan, unless I'm missing something subtle. If I am, please quote something stating that the rules in the book have been overridden, because I do not see anything indicating that from an Infernal.

I think you need to read through everything thats been said Valander, your jumping into the conversation near the end.. I know how the rule works, im saying how i feel it needs to be changed.. in both images i posted i am following exactly what you said. My post was in responce to the other people who think it should be changed. specifically Runewyse

The rules in the book have not been changed, in any way shape or form.. its exactly how its written.. im saying that how it's written causes the shenanigans of the two images i posted

Edit: Specifically posts #12 and #17 (to avoid confusion with all the other images i posted)

Valander
05-25-2011, 02:04 PM
The rules in the book have not been changed, in any way shape or form.. its exactly how its written.. im saying that how its written causes the shenanigans of the two images i posted

Ah, gotchya. At the same time, this much debate obviously is confusing, and people who come in looking for an answer probably will get as confused (or moreso) about what is being said as I was.

The short of it is: yes, the current rules as written allow some shennanigans. Until we get errata stating otherwise (and we just got one, nothing in there despite some of the original issues here being much older), it is the way it works, and it is therefore the way it should be played, whether you agree with it or not.

Ranhothep
05-25-2011, 02:59 PM
Guys, I find this debate very interesting and am eagerly awaiting a resolution. What I would like to comment on, is the perception of some that this debate is a product of rules lawyering and can only happen at CONS etc. I think this is a false assumption. These situations can easily happen unintentionally. Imagine someone is flanking your jack and just gets into his front arc with a sliver of his base. Now you see the enemy model is visible so you will not turn to get a wall into your line of sight granting cover to the enemy model, but you rather forfeit your movement to get an aiming bonus. Of course in other situations this result (not seeing the cover-providing feature) could be intentionally achieved. Some people claim this to be unfair. However, there are several rules with similar effects (imagine blocking an enemy model's with reach line of sight with 2-3 troopers in order to allow your warcaster who was engaged by said enemy model to move away without a free strike) that are accepted and not considered unfair, just a feature of the game.
I guess my point is that rules are neither fair nor unfair, since they work the same way for both players and as long as the rules are clear and easily applied we should have no objections against further clarifications.

silverpuppy
05-25-2011, 03:47 PM
Ranhothep, im sure this is in response to my post and dis-like for grey funky ruling that require such long and puzzled together threads.
While it is clear how the rule works and how one comes to the proper conclusion. It was not when first looking over the rule, and even as it is the line between manipulation of a rule and properly playing it can be on a razors edge.
There are many ways to give examples that would only be able to be decided by a judge or dice off. There are also indeed many many rules that can be used to give or allow models to skirt what would be considered not possible in real life! I accept its a game and that real life does not constitute a basis for a disagreement, but some rules are clear and easy to identify as making since in a black and white "by the book" scenario. Others like this way of ignoring an advantage would seem to be more "grey" and left to interpretation of the players involved to come to the proper out come.
My reference to CON's was more to the specific nature of a competitive event and could also include just local tourneys depending on the area and overall competitive nature of the group. I think there would be few here who would disagree the greatest chance of seeing rule abuse (and by abuse im simply stating using a rule that gives an advantage over what the majority would consider questionable) used to swing a game in ones favor.

back to the topic at hand, this rule is somewhat clear now although the very nature of how the models interact is where the confusion i think comes. maxsterling has visually illustrated how it works in such a way i understand how it works now even if i dont like it :)

DarkAlliance
05-26-2011, 12:24 AM
your diagram in case a is not correct because your bottom pink LOS is going to a portion of the defenders volume which is not in the front arc of the attacker and the line is also originating in the front arc.. it can originate from any part of the base

edit: added black front arc line and two green lines showing the possible edges of lines of sight

http://www.pwn4g3.org/images/los_cover.jpg

WoW! So many emotive responses. Apologies for dragging this subject up again, but with 2 major UK tournaments in the next 6 weeks, I need a definitive ruling.

Reading through all these extra comments, and the various linked threads it is confusing, and is not something I personally like if I'm being honest. However, personal feelings aside I have two simple questions which I hope maybe an Infernal can give a quick brief answer on -

1. Is the ruling for example (a) shown above, the final word on how this is to be played? i.e. cover would not be granted?

2. In example (c) shown above - is cover granted - yes or no? I just need the official ruling.

In both examples, it seems to be that all of the arguments for and against have been put, so whether I or anyone else like it or not, can we just have a simple ruling please.

Once again, my apologies for bringing this up.

j78
05-26-2011, 03:13 AM
1. Is the ruling for example (a) shown above, the final word on how this is to be played? i.e. cover would not be granted?

2. In example (c) shown above - is cover granted - yes or no? I just need the official ruling.



1 - for case (a) there is no cover. there is no LOS from the attacking model, that passes through the cover, to a portion of the target model that is in the attacking models front arc.

2 - i'm still fuzzy on this one. i keep seeing the quote "intervening models do not block LOS to terrain" but i'm confused about where that is coming from.

also for (1) above, that is a rule from the book. that is not based on any infernal ruling or anything like that, as far as I understand it.

Tekanan
05-26-2011, 03:58 AM
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a329/juckto/Warmachine/loscoverdiagram.png


I posted below in the previous thread and stand by my decision. Gonna just copy & paste it here to help fuel the debate. :D

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. :)


As for the below pic,
http://www.gamestlouis.com/saultydog/LOS.jpg
I'd still rule it as no cover bonus from the quoted rule above.

rydiafan
05-26-2011, 04:53 AM
i keep seeing the quote "intervening models do not block LOS to terrain" but i'm confused about where that is coming from.

It's coming from the fact that the rules never say they do.

j78
05-26-2011, 04:57 AM
It's coming from the fact that the rules never say they do.

gotcha, i'm just trying to follow along, and with links to 8 other threads it's hard to keep track.

so, as far as I understand it now, everyone is in agreement with the second picture in post #70 not giving cover (although many people are unhappy with that result, they at least conceede thats RAW).

the first picture in #70 is still undecided, or not?

GalacticCongressman
05-26-2011, 06:39 AM
Tekanan: In the first image you posted in post 70, I will call the example on the left (with no intervening jack) line A and the other line B.

Where in the rules for determining cover, and determining cover alone, does it state that line A (the line that proves a target benefits from cover) cannot cross an intervening model with a base size equal to or larger than the target?



(And I do not see the 2nd image posted, must be hosted somewhere that is blocked by my work firewall)

Dominar Eeyore
05-26-2011, 08:03 AM
(And I do not see the 2nd image posted, must be hosted somewhere that is blocked by my work firewall)

Its hosted on my personal website.. not sure why it would be blocked, but im in IT i know things like that happen

EDIT: nevermind, that one ISNT on my website its an image that i originally created but was edited by someone else and rehosted

j78
05-26-2011, 02:03 PM
serrin posted this on page one, and it got skipped over during art class

The first problem with the rules is that when reading about cover and concealment on p.57 there is basicly only talk about whether terrain obscures any portion of a models base from an attacker. Now for some people it might be obvious to look at the LOS rules on p.43 in order to determine how exactly it works, but for other people it isn't. Its written nowhere that these rules confer to LOS in any way. And when looking at LOS on p.43 there is nothing mentioned of "obscuring".

***
why are we using the LOS rules to determine if something obscures something else? where is it written that obscure is defined through LOS? what about just drawing a line from the defender to the attacker, and if you draw it through terrain, then there's cover.
*edit - draw a line at any point.

thag-rush
05-26-2011, 02:14 PM
It has less to do with the LOS rules (as a game term) than it has to do with the front arc (Facing) rules. In order to obscure from the attacker it must be within the attackers perspective, which per the rules of Facing is the front arc. You can not obscure anything outside of the models front arc because it has no awareness in those directions, also specifically mentioned in Facing.

Tekanan
05-26-2011, 06:52 PM
@galacticongressman: I'm referring to the statement on pg.58 which I have quoted. The key word here is "obscure".


serrin posted this on page one, and it got skipped over during art class

The first problem with the rules is that when reading about cover and concealment on p.57 there is basicly only talk about whether terrain obscures any portion of a models base from an attacker. Now for some people it might be obvious to look at the LOS rules on p.43 in order to determine how exactly it works, but for other people it isn't. Its written nowhere that these rules confer to LOS in any way. And when looking at LOS on p.43 there is nothing mentioned of "obscuring".

***
why are we using the LOS rules to determine if something obscures something else? where is it written that obscure is defined through LOS? what about just drawing a line from the defender to the attacker, and if you draw it through terrain, then there's cover.
*edit - draw a line at any point.

Agreed. I feel the problem here lies in "obscure" not being properly defined like how intervening models are defined.

Debating this in real life would make you sound like you are reading too much into the rules and potentially be seen as rule lawyering. Such is the perception in reality. This is something I'd be lenient in real life or leave it to the judges. Thankfully there's a forum for us to debate and resolve this matter on the internet so we wouldn't have to go through this debate in real life. I do wonder what an Infernal would say on this... :).

MaelstromX29
05-26-2011, 08:52 PM
Unfortunately there has to be a point of degree that alters what gains cover to what does not gain cover, or else you could manipulate the system in either direction to argue til the end of the world on why you do or do not gain cover just by the tiniest fractions of lines. I for one think shooting someone out of the corner of your eye is considerably harder, but...we are talking rules, not logic.

However, this entire argument/discussion wasn't really necessary, though interesting to say the least. Prime Mark II, page 43, read section: "Using Reference objects" and then remember that on the same page under section "Line of Sight numeric 1", attacker's front arc determines LOS and if that is angled in such a way as to not cross terrain feature in any possible way (only arguably possible if front arcs are painted or somehow detailed) then no cover is given (again last sentence on page under "Using Reference Objects").

Cheap trick? Yes
Legal? Yes
Will it cast you out from your local group of players when you turn the model and set upon the rules manipulation? Hell yes

On a positive note: that model is turning its back to something else most likely, so make him suffer for it.

Fryerdan
05-26-2011, 09:36 PM
If I see this done in a game I'm playing, I'm collecting my miniatures off the board.

gthiltharmon
05-26-2011, 10:13 PM
@Tekanan #70
The problem with image 1 (situation on the right), where the cover is obstructed by a large jack is that models are not considered obstructions. If they were you'd be able to use ghostly to move past models as well. Intervening Models only block line of sight if the target model is the same size or smaller. A terrain feature is not a model.

@j78
The line:
A models within 1" of a concealing terrain feature that obscures any portion of its volume (p.43) from an attacker gains +2 DEF against range and magic attack rolls
Forces us to consider los when determining an obscuring object, even though (imo) the los portion of the rule book does not explicitly mention how.

I would also like to point out that
http://www.pwn4g3.org/images/removecover.png
should not work as the defending model just has to be within 1" of the terrain feature that obscures, not within 1" of the point of terrain feature that obscures,

edit: made some changes as I just realized that there was a 2nd image on post #70, which I still cant see

Karsten
05-26-2011, 10:45 PM
I would also like to point out that
http://www.pwn4g3.org/images/removecover.png
should not work as the defending model just has to be within 1" of the terrain feature that obscures, not within 1" of the point of terrain feature that obscures,

A lot of people believe that you have to be within 1" along the line - not just at some arbitrary point. See post #56 case b)
As far as I know I know there has also been a ruling on this: no cover is gained.


------------
Just a bit of brainstorming - may be ignored
------------
I wish it was easy to define the center of a base.
It would be easier if the rules was something like:
"A model benefits from cover if it is within 1" of obscuring terrain along the line from the center of the attackers base to the center of the defenders base." Quote me
Easy, simple and will only give "funny" results if you cover between two pieces of terrain and the center of your base is showing.
Unfortunately finding the center of a model is not always easy and the models will obscure your view when trying to determine if there is cover or not.
---------------

tensteam
05-26-2011, 11:45 PM
A lot of people believe that you have to be within 1" along the line - not just at some arbitrary point. See post #56 case b)
As far as I know I know there has also been a ruling on this: no cover is gained.

Yes that has been ruled and makes perfect sence, because it rules out cover in some very bizarre situations like it should.

IMHO we just need a ruling saying if you can draw a line from any part of attacking model to any part of target model (ignoring intervening models) and that line crosses cover within 1" of the target the target has cover. That's dead simple and leaves no arguments. And no abuse is possible.

Tekanan
05-27-2011, 12:38 AM
@Tekanan #70
A terrain feature is not a model.


I like this statement. It really changes my point of view! However, here's the catch. If you say that we can draw a line (of sight) across the large based model to determine whether the target received cover bonus (as a large based model is not an intervening model with respect to terrain), this means that we can use that line to measure the range of our weapon (which, mathematically speaking, is shorter than the unobscured line). This line is invalid because when considering LOS to the target, the large-based model is an intervening model.

The line (of sight) drawn when a model checks to see if the target can be seen is usually the line taken when determining whether your weapon is in range. If this line crosses over a relevant terrain feature/wreck, cover/concealment bonus is given. If it isn't, no cover/concealment bonus. That's how I look at it and this IMO answers the 2nd pic's conundrum. That is my interpretation of this issue.

They key problem here is the word "obscure" isn't properly defined. I'm predicting an Infernal would come in and give a ruling that is intended and does not follow RAW.

juckto
05-27-2011, 12:45 AM
IMHO we just need a ruling saying if you can draw a line from any part of attacking model to any part of target model (ignoring intervening models) and that line crosses cover within 1" of the target (measured along the same line) then the target has cover. That's dead simple and leaves no arguments. And no abuse is possible.
It left one argument, you didn't specify that the 1" had to measured along the same line. I could be back in this situation:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5577245109_a1398ff19b_z.jpg
And say yup that line crosses cover yup that cover is within 1" of the target. Yup I get cover in this situation.

j78
05-27-2011, 03:12 AM
i think there is an issue of perspective that is also being missed. people keep pointing out how shady and underhanded a move this would be, but look at example (a) in post #53 above. what if the blue player moved in to shoot first, while red was facing north. the blue player moved into a poor position to take advantage, should the red player have to change facing to shoot now?

there are multiple reasons to want to face a certain direction on the table, one of them may be to deny cover, but setting up charges, protecting a back arc, setting up out of activation movement are all also valid reasons.

i think the rules are fine, they make sense, they're well written. i'm still unsure about "obscure" because it's not defined, but i think it's logical to use the LOS rules, because otherwise you'd be obscuring things you couldn't see in the first place.

i think people want to argue against the legality because they are assuming it's only there to be abused. there are any number of "legitimate" reasons to want to face in a weird direction, and once that happens you should apply the rules as written.

tensteam
05-27-2011, 03:37 AM
It left one argument, you didn't specify that the 1" had to measured along the same line.
As I said that has already been ruled by infernals. Link (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?43765-cover-within-1-quot&p=647860&viewfull=1#post647860)

Now we just need a clarification how the facing and intervening models interfere. The easiest move would be to discount all these altogether. Such was my suggestion even though you could draw also different conclusions from the rulebook. The end result should be easily understandable and clear rules.

j78
05-27-2011, 03:42 AM
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?48692-When-is-a-model-obscured&p=683116&viewfull=1#post683116

sorry, should have searched before i posted earlier, i knew i read that before.

line has to come from the front arc, so unless they are going to change that, now we know there are ways to deny cover by altering facing. that's half the battle i hear.

Manic Menite
05-27-2011, 03:44 AM
i think the rules are fine, they make sense, they're well written. i'm still unsure about "obscure" because it's not defined, but i think it's logical to use the LOS rules, because otherwise you'd be obscuring things you couldn't see in the first place.

So you think the situation in the diagram in post #80 and 81 make sense? That the defender should not get cover?

Manic Menite
05-27-2011, 03:51 AM
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?48692-When-is-a-model-obscured&p=683116&viewfull=1#post683116

sorry, should have searched before i posted earlier, i knew i read that before.

line has to come from the front arc, so unless they are going to change that, now we know there are ways to deny cover by altering facing. that's half the battle i hear.

But then he slightly clarified that here:

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?57778-Linear-cover-and-corners-Does-it-stop-counting-as-cover&p=804412&viewfull=1#post804412

tensteam
05-27-2011, 03:54 AM
But then he slightly clarified that here:

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?57778-Linear-cover-and-corners-Does-it-stop-counting-as-cover&p=804412&viewfull=1#post804412

EDIT: Nothing to see in here. I think I got it. Not that I like it though ;)

Manic Menite
05-27-2011, 03:57 AM
And at least I have no idea what "line has to end in front arc" means. Front arc of which model? Does the line have to follow normal LoS rules? Maybe it is my English skills, but I'd really like to read it a bit more clear.

I take it to mean that it has to end at a point on the defenders model that is within the front arc of the attacking model. See the diagram in post # 46 in this thread as an example.

j78
05-27-2011, 03:58 AM
But then he slightly clarified that here:

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?57778-Linear-cover-and-corners-Does-it-stop-counting-as-cover&p=804412&viewfull=1#post804412

yes, but still, front arc of the attacking model is involved, where as earlier I had questioned whether "obscured" could be from any point on the attacker to any point on the defender with no regard to front arc. even the post you linked above uses front arc.

as for diagram #80/81 - yeah, per the rules, there's no cover there. i think "sense" was prpbably not the right word to use, as i don't like debating whether magically powered constructs can in fact hide behind walls.

Manic Menite
05-27-2011, 04:05 AM
yes, but still, front arc of the attacking model is involved, where as earlier I had questioned whether "obscured" could be from any point on the attacker to any point on the defender with no regard to front arc. even the post you linked above uses front arc.

as for diagram #80/81 - yeah, per the rules, there's no cover there. i think "sense" was prpbably not the right word to use, as i don't like debating whether magically powered constructs can in fact hide behind walls.

Ah yes, the old "we're talking about a world with magical robots so logic has no place anywhere" defense. ;)

tensteam
05-27-2011, 04:11 AM
Ah yes, the old "we're talking about a world with magical robots so logic has no place anywhere" defense. ;)
Well to be honest we've got a ruling. Is it something we like or what would be easy to explain to your casual gaming buddy is other thing. Maybe it'll change maybe it doesn't, time will tell.

So the only thing still open is case c) in post #53.

j78
05-27-2011, 04:14 AM
Ah yes, the old "we're talking about a world with magical robots so logic has no place anywhere" defense. ;)

constructs...i think robots imply a higher level of tech :)

but, if there's a ruling that says it doesn't work that way, i'm fine with that. to date, i don't believe there has been, and i believe as written and understood, #80 does not provide cover.

Serrin
05-27-2011, 04:40 AM
Just so that I get it right, cover or no cover:

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m494/Serrin77/removecover.jpg

Because in the pictures above there has always been this pink line (it was red above, but I made it pink in order to distinguish) which I didn't understand...

Manic Menite
05-27-2011, 04:59 AM
Just so that I get it right, cover or no cover:

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m494/Serrin77/removecover.jpg

Because in the pictures above there has always been this pink line (it was red above, but I made it pink in order to distinguish) which I didn't understand...

It depends how long the part of the pink line between the wall and model B is. More than 1", no cover. An inch or less, cover.

j78
05-27-2011, 05:01 AM
Just so that I get it right, cover or no cover:

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m494/Serrin77/removecover.jpg

Because in the pictures above there has always been this pink line (it was red above, but I made it pink in order to distinguish) which I didn't understand...

cover.

the pink line goes from model A's volume, to model B, to a point in model A's front arc. that line is obscured by terrain, w/in 1" of model B. **EDIT i'm assuming the placement of the blue line is meant to indicate the pink line between cover/B is less than 1"

just to be clear, that is a different situation than #80 above and #70.

Manic Menite
05-27-2011, 05:08 AM
Because in the pictures above there has always been this pink line (it was red above, but I made it pink in order to distinguish) which I didn't understand...

This is because, based on a clarification Macallan made here (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?57778-Linear-cover-and-corners-Does-it-stop-counting-as-cover&p=804412&viewfull=1#post804412), when you are drawing a line to see if it can go over cover (there are an infinite number of possible lines though, the pink one is just the most extreme), you can draw the line from ANY point of the attacker's base to a point of the defender's base that is within the front arc of the attacker.

Serrin
05-27-2011, 05:20 AM
Thanks a lot guys, this was the part in Macallan's clarification that I didn't get. Now its clear. And yes, the part of the pink line from the wall to the defender is meant to be less than an inch in my picture above.

Somehow a (at least for me) very unintuitive ruling, but hey it is what it is and at least I got it now. :)