1 hour ago, ReoitahiKid said:

In the video at the time stamp I put it to, Luke is on top of the building being fired at by stormtroopers from below, and no cover is given to him when defending (two hits are rolled against him, and two defense dice are rolled, with one damage getting through). This is why I am having a hard time believing that it is intended that LOS is not mentioned in the current cover rules.

Ok. I see where the guy messed up. However, if the actual rules text were meant that a mini could get no cover because that mini is "so exposed", then I don't see how the text would in no way call for this sort of check. LOS is clearly on or off and "obscured" minis is clearly base to base. Why even write text that you measure from base to base if the intent was to use top of mini to mini? I can understand a word or two being wrong, but the entire section is so clearly written and the diagrams associated with that rule shows a mini getting cover (the yellow one in the middle) despite not being obscured by the terrain at all. If Luke in the video doesn't get cover for being exposed on a building, then the Stormtroopers in the woods in that diagram shouldn't also be getting cover for standing next to, but not behind, some trees. IMO this is clearly a mistake.

I've seen FFG game designers playing fast and loose with the rules. The RPG designers, for example, are notorious for ignoring huge sections of the rules and just winging it in con demos.

20 minutes ago, Hedgehobbit said:

...the entire section is so clearly written and the diagrams associated with that rule shows a mini getting cover (the yellow one in the middle) despite not being obscured by the terrain at all. If Luke in the video doesn't get cover for being exposed on a building, then the Stormtroopers in the woods in that diagram shouldn't also be getting cover for standing next to, but not behind, some trees. IMO this is clearly a mistake.

In the diagram you're talking about, the two stormtroopers at the back are in area terrain (see page 8), which LOS wouldn't apply to.

I admit that the rules are ambiguous as they stand now, with the cover section not mentioning LOS at all, but I don't think they'd say the following on page 8 if LOS was to be ignored completely:

"As a general rule, terrain that blocks line of sight to half or more of a mini provides cover, while terrain that blocks less than half of a mini does not"

Some argue that this is only intended to apply when defining cover before a game, but this doesn't really make sense to me, as line of sight differs depending on the attacking/defending unit, and their relative positions/elevation.

Personally, I don't think it's a mistake that Alex didn't grant cover in the video, even though that conflicts with the current rules, as it makes logical sense. He's been saying from the beginning that this is a true line of sight game.

I just hope they update the rules soon to make it 100% clear either way.

15 minutes ago, ReoitahiKid said:

In the diagram you're talking about, the two stormtroopers at the back are in area terrain (see page 8), which LOS wouldn't apply to.

This is exactly my point. The building would also be treated as area terrain if you are on it. You're interpretation relies on subtle distinctions between terrain types that are not present in the actual rules. Not present because they don't apply.

"As a general rule, terrain that blocks line of sight to half or more of a mini provides cover, while terrain that blocks less than half of a mini does not"

If this rules from page 8 was meant to be applied in play then the wording would have to change as it's incorrect. Terrain doesn't provide cover to individual miniatures. Instead, terrain obscures miniatures. The rule should have used that term. Also, later in the same paragraph it says, " Terrain that completely blocks line of sight always provides heavy cover " which is nonsensical in play as terrain that completely blocks LOS to attacking miniatures makes the attack impossible.

If you use the rules about blocking half the mini, then you also have to use the rules that you can attack minis where the LOS is completely block (albeit with heavy cover). Otherwise, you are cherry picking sentences out of a paragraph.

2 minutes ago, Hedgehobbit said:

This is exactly my point. The building would also be treated as area terrain if you are on it. You're interpretation relies on subtle distinctions between terrain types that are not present in the actual rules. Not present because they don't apply.

1

The only buildings that would fall under area terrain are ruins where there are lots of scattered obstacles that could make line of sight calculations tricky. A building like the one in the video would be a large object under the custom terrain rules, which can have different terrain categories depending on which part applies.

Quote

" Terrain that completely blocks line of sight always provides heavy cover " which is nonsensical in play as terrain that completely blocks LOS to attacking miniatures makes the attack impossible.

You can absolutely still attack a miniature when your leader has no line of sight to it. This is another reason why I think my interpretation has merit. As long as you have at least one miniature with LOS to that enemy, you can still fire at it. It just counts as being in heavy cover if the leader can't see it.

Basically, I think that when playing on a flat map using only the included barricades as terrain, it's fine to do the base-to-base cover calculation, and that's why that's all that's mentioned in the main part of the rules reference.

When using any custom terrain, pages 8-10 apply, and you have to work out the rules to use for terrain with your opponent before the game. I believe the most logical way to apply cover with custom terrain is using line of sight from the leader during play, and the 50%+ blocked general rule when area terrain isn't involved.

Cover is determined by base-to-base line.
Line-of-site is determined by the highest point of the mini, but "clear" line of site does not necessarily mean no cover.

Is that an accurate summation?

Line of Sight (at the moment, whitout considering the page 8 paragraph) should be used to determine if one miniature can partecipate to the attack (it must see at least one target) and if it can suffer wounds when attacked (if no attacking miniature' unit can see one or more miniature in the target unit, these cannot be hit and cannot suffer wounds.

This is how I understand rules so far. The problem is the page 8 paragraph that create confusion, so this problem needs a specific faq.

18 hours ago, Xiervak said:

Cover is determined by base-to-base line, if the target is not inside area terrain or touching a barricade
Line-of-site is determined by the highest point of the mini, but "clear" line of site does not necessarily mean no cover.

Is that an accurate summation?

yes
and you can play the whole game without 3d terrain at all and using coloured sheets of paper as terrain were everyone can see everything and units would still benefit from cover

8 hours ago, airshow said:

The problem is the page 8 paragraph that create confusion, so this problem needs a specific faq.

or: the 50% obscured rule is there to grant units behind terrain cover, while those inside (area) terrain always get it (with barricades being a special type of area terrain)

It seems, from the rrg that LOS is the way to go for tall vehicles. From the centre of the attacker's base go up to the top centre of it's sculpt and peer from there. According to the LOS rules on page 31 if the attacker can see at least part of the defender from that POV INCLUDING the defender's base then the mini is NOT obscured hence they can suffer wounds. I say if at least half of the defending minis' bases are FULLY visible (but no minis are obscured) then no cover. I see it as you're attacking from the air or from tall height so you're shooting down OVER the barricade as though the minis are on open ground. It wouldn't make sense that you treat an air assault or a ground vehicle with height the same as a low ground assault. A barricade becomes useless if the attacker can attack over it and down. That said any mini fully obscured from the attacker can't take damage according to the rrg.

If at least half of the minis have their BASES at least partially obscured from the height POV of the air or tall mini attacker then give them full cover. Again individual fully obscured minis take no wounds.

All this becomes moot when you start taking into account weapons the attacker uses that ignores cover. Also remember some weapons on these vehicles have MINIMUM ranges so getting too close may render the weapon useless.

Looks like the RRG will be updated to cover this, the 50% coverage reference was meant as a guideline to help players agree on what terrain can provide a cover bonus to what units based when placing mini next to said cover.

During gameplay you should check LOS, if any part of a mini or it’s base is hidden it is considered obscured, then do the imaginary base to base line check for all obscured units to see if it they have cover, if that line passes over the terrain or unit potentially providing cover, then cover is granted. Obviously you need to do this for all obscured units identified in the LOS check and the majority rule still needs to be considered for squads.

This change should help remove those weird scenarios where an AT-ST or Snow speeder shoot a trooper unit that happens to be a large distance behind a barricade, and cover is granted despite appearing to be exposed given the LOS.

The upshot of all this means that height of the minis absolutely will make a difference of if some targets benefit from cover.

Height will mean that a mini can potentially see completely past cover, and lacking base contact will negate it.

On 4/15/2018 at 5:33 AM, Digimortal said:

Looks like the RRG will be updated to cover this, the 50% coverage reference was meant as a guideline to help players agree on what terrain can provide a cover bonus to what units based when placing mini next to said cover.

Source for this upcoming change?

10 minutes ago, lloydraphah said:

Source for this upcoming change?

10 minutes ago, lloydraphah said:

Source for this upcoming change?

Alex Davey responded to a bunch of emailed questions, sending the same thing to everyone for cover/Los.

copies are in the thread about email clarifications.

I have to say that I'm not really a fan of that rules change. With the rules as currently written, vehicles will have cover less often than troopers because certain terrain types might not provide cover for vehicles but will provide it for troopers. This seems fair at the moment.

However, drawing a LOS line from the top of the vehicle to the base of a trooper target will mean that vehicles will often ignore nearby cover, such as buildings, yet, when the troopers return fire, that same building will now block the line from the top of the trooper to the vehicle's BASE, meaning the vehicle will receive cover.

4 minutes ago, Hedgehobbit said:

I have to say that I'm not really a fan of that rules change. With the rules as currently written, vehicles will have cover less often than troopers because certain terrain types might not provide cover for vehicles but will provide it for troopers. This seems fair at the moment.

However, drawing a LOS line from the top of the vehicle to the base of a trooper target will mean that vehicles will often ignore nearby cover, such as buildings, yet, when the troopers return fire, that same building will now block the line from the top of the trooper to the vehicle's BASE, meaning the vehicle will receive cover.

That's why you determine if terrain grants cover to vehicles BEFORE you start, which was addressed in the email. Page 8 only applies before the game starts. After, if the troopers in your example trace LOS over terrain and you determined the terrain does not grant cover to the vehicle, the attack is no obstructed and no cover is granted.

5 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

That's why you determine if terrain grants cover to vehicles BEFORE you start, which was addressed in the email.

Let me clarify. Because of the height of the AT-ST, there will be a large amount of terrain that can provide cover to vehicles (by virtue of it's ability to block 50%+ of the model), yet still be short enough for the AT-ST to shoot over. I guess the big problem is using the top if a miniature for LOS cover checks when the weapons that are actually shooting are located 2" below the top.

If you used the same spot for both LOS checks then it wouldn't be an issue.

I don't really see that as a problem. The AT-ST would need to be right next to the building, and the troopers far away from it, which is a situation where you'd expect the vehicle to have an advantage. As soon as they get close enough to the building the AT-ST couldn't fire at them at all. Given the right terrain, the troopers could even enter the building the AT-ST is using as cover, and attack without it being able to fire back. That would force the AT-ST player to support their vehicle with troopers, or stop using that building as cover.

I think measuring line of sight from the top center of a mini is a necessary abstraction, even if it does seem a little wonky at times. It's just far easier to measure LOS from the top when you have to eyeball it.

Vehicles should still get cover though as he suggested phrasing in the email is that if any part of the base or mini is obscured then check if cover lies between the two.

The 50% reference seems to be a guide to help players agree on what can provide covering setup so this can be a point of negotiation.

Looking at my terrain I’d say over half of it will qualify for providing an AT-ST with cover.

Glad the LOS and cover ruling has went how I have been playing, ie true line of site being used over the silly base to base page 8 thing when somethings in the open but a barricade in

Would it be fair to say that everything is area terrain IF it obscures any part of the defending mini (or obscures at least half of the minis in a defending unit)? And you decide before the game what cover is granted to troopers and vehicles by each piece of terrain.

In addition, there can also be also area terrain that does not check if LoS is obscured. Like a forest piece with 3 trees on it that represents dense woods.