46 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

The pre-match determinations if it will 50% cover everything is highly situational. What if the model is in a doorway of a wall that normally 100% covers?

If the model is completely in the doorway - meaning that line of sight from your unit leader to that mini, including that mini's base, is not obscured by any part of the wall - then it has no cover. In other words, it works exactly as you'd expect.

The 50% determination should be quick and easy. "Is this wall high enough for a Trooper to hide behind? For an AT-ST?"

46 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

What if the attacker is at an odd angle on an obtuse piece of terrain, making it more like 30% obscured?

Doesn't matter - if it's obscured at all, even just 1%, then it's obscured.

If it's obscured, you then check the line from center of base to center of base. If that line crosses the terrain, it gets cover.

I think it's a system that's way easier to explain in person (with examples / props) than in pure text, which is why so many people are having issues with it (and why it needed email clarification in the first place). But it's works pretty well in practice.

46 minutes ago, Deuzerre said:

IMO the only weakness of the rule in that regard is: What about elevation?
We house-rule it currently.

Elevation comes into play when you are checking whether the unit is obscured. When looking from across a field, a barricade may obscure everything behind it. But when looking down from above, the barricade only obscures models directly adjacent to it. Models that are fully visible do not benefit from cover.

You might also wish to declare that a rooftop is area terrain providing light cover, but that's up to you.

what I mean is that there are no rules about it.
We sort of treat it like sharpshooter 1 / Light cover if there's a 1 height difference between the shooter or the target, sharpshooter 2 if there's a 2 height difference

1 hour ago, Contrapulator said:

You might also wish to declare that a rooftop is area terrain providing light cover, but that's up to you.

43 minutes ago, Deuzerre said:

We sort of treat it like sharpshooter 1 / Light cover if there's a 1 height difference between the shooter or the target, sharpshooter 2 if there's a 2 height difference

If you want to encourage verticality and climbing - play with more terrain, have it bridged across (so you can traverse the board from the elevated position, rather than being effectively "trapped" on a single rooftop), and toss your barricades pretty much exclusively onto rooftops so that's where the best cover is.

Legion seems to get progressively better the closer the board gets to an Infinity table. Speeders can zip over terrain, the AT-RT can climb, and the AT-ST is tall enough to see over stuff; so vehicle's are a lot less limited by dense/tall terrain than in other games.

I'd love to see a game like that, svelok! Also, you could place an objective on top of some terrain.

Yeah the key to elevated play is having a reason to be up there and proper cover.

Most of the buildings we have at my store are flat topped, no cover at all on top of it. Barricades or saying light cover for being on top works wonders, since often you have one heck of a firing position up there.
Given how difficult it is to climb it really should be a strong position, and its the board setup not the rules that make it a great or bad spot to be in. Also objective placements

On 5/1/2018 at 3:03 AM, Contrapulator said:

You might also wish to declare that a rooftop is area terrain providing light cover, but that's up to you.

I would also suggest that each wall is a separate item of terrain, thus if you are in base contact with a wall you can see into the room allowing a unit to shoot through doors and windows that may be on the face of that wall. But then not see out the other side of the building.

On 5/1/2018 at 7:02 AM, Vineheart01 said:

Most of the buildings we have at my store are flat topped, no cover at all on top of it. Barricades or saying light cover for being on top works wonders, since often you have one heck of a firing position up there.

Looking up at the model I will not be able to see it in full, as such it would be in cover unless I am on the same or higher level. Making the rooftop area terrain and light cover works very well, I have done that myself to good effect.

The guts of the rules are:

1. At the start of the game can this terrain hide 50% or more of my model? It wouldn't surprise me that the tournament rules provide a standardised height for models like the AT-ST that can be posed.
1a. What level of cover do we get?

2. During the game if I can see 100% of the model it is in the open. (A good old laser pointer will sort this out with precision if it ever gets to that.)
2a. If I can see anything less, and we agreed that the model would be concealed in step 1, then we draw a line across the table from centre-to-centre and if that line crosses the terrain then we apply the level of cover agreed in step 1.

So we look at a Barricade say pre-game: This will conceal Troops, Vader and Luke, but not Bikes, T-47, AT-RT or AT-ST, if you are concealed then these provide Heavy Cover.
During the game, the AT-ST shoots at the Troopers behind the cover, if they fall in the little triangle of space that would hide part of their model or base those models thus hidden get heavy cover. If they shoot back the AT-ST (even if they are not in base contact with the Barricade) as we agreed that the AT-ST can never be concealed by that, then the AT-ST gets no cover.

Buildings are because they seem to be one piece of terrain a problem ATM. Because you walk up to a wall and can see through the building, meanwhile the unit you just shot at can't shoot back because they are not in base contact with the building. Hence my thinking that you have to define each wall and each level as separate terrain items. Is the building shown one piece of terrain or several? How would you treat a unit touching the right hand garden wall shooting at a unit behind the single level part of the building?

@Big Easy Area terrain doesn't block line of sight, the example is that a unit on one side of light woods can see and shoot at a unit on the other. It's only when you call it heavy cover that it blocks LOS. So right now I don't see that AT-ST player being agreeable to the suggestion that we have no LOS through the woods.

10 hours ago, Amanal said:

Buildings are because they seem to be one piece of terrain a problem ATM. Because you walk up to a wall and can see through the building, meanwhile the unit you just shot at can't shoot back because they are not in base contact with the building. Hence my thinking that you have to define each wall and each level as separate terrain items. Is the building shown one piece of terrain or several? How would you treat a unit touching the right hand garden wall shooting at a unit behind the single level part of the building?

Correct me if I'm wrong (too lazy to check right now), but why would being in base contact with the wall allow you to ignore it for line of sight? If you can't see the enemy, you can't see them.

Here’s what was tricky for me...

if the unit leader is hidden totally from sight behind a large rock or building but he snakes his troopers out in cohesion.

you are gonna check range and draw a line from the leader but he can’t even see them. If he’s in base contact with that terrain the enemy can’t get cover from it.

so then when you form the attack pools you get to still attack from the models that can see the enemy.

what my buddy did was leave half his unit totally out of site which gave cover 2 to the units that were out in the open.

i did plenty of research and this seems to be the way to play it.

On 4/30/2018 at 1:58 PM, Deuzerre said:

what I mean is that there are no rules about it.
We sort of treat it like sharpshooter 1 / Light cover if there's a 1 height difference between the shooter or the target, sharpshooter 2 if there's a 2 height difference

I hate this way. Terrain effecting true line of site is better.

5 minutes ago, WeathermanX said:

what my buddy did was leave half his unit totally out of site which gave cover 2 to the units that were out in the open.

That's legit. You are trading offensive power for defense. It's a pretty elegant system.

Is there a link for these revised cover rules?

2 minutes ago, Kinjo said:

Is there a link for these revised cover rules?

I quoted the whole email from Alex about halfway down page 1 of this thread.

We'd been playing true line of sight/common sense for cover because a 20' AT-ST gaining cover from a 3' wall is silly. Still, if that's the general consensus I guess we'll move in that direction.

What it means is that pretty much everyone gets cover all the time, barring some rash moves, which certainly devalues some abilities while enhancing others. A speeder behind a barricade with its cover 1 is just as protected as an AT-ST or trooper in the same position because cover maxes at 2 dice. Blast weapons on the other hand will be invaluable if you want to cause damage in significant amounts.

It's not necessarily bad but it's certainly going to take some getting used to.

4 minutes ago, Katarn said:

We'd been playing true line of sight/common sense for cover because a 20' AT-ST gaining cover from a 3' wall is silly. Still, if that's the general consensus I guess we'll move in that direction.

I mean, you decide what gives cover on a unit-by-unit basis. So if you don't think a wall gives cover to AT-STs, then you make that call during setup.

For example, the barricades in the core set give heavy cover to troopers and no cover to anything else.

2 minutes ago, Contrapulator said:

I mean, you decide what gives cover on a unit-by-unit basis. So if you don't think a wall gives cover to AT-STs, then you make that call during setup.

Ah, OK, I read it as just being a choice of no-light-heavy cover for everyone. That makes more sense.

56 minutes ago, Katarn said:

Ah, OK, I read it as just being a choice of no-light-heavy cover for everyone. That makes more sense.

During setup, you decide whether a given piece of terrain provides cover to a given model. This wall? Too short for AT-ST, no cover. This forest? Yeah, that's tall enough., gives the AT-ST cover.

During gameplay, though, it doesn't matter how much of the AT-ST is behind the forest - even if it's just 1%, it gets the cover.

That's probably the part that threw you off.

19 minutes ago, svelok said:

During setup, you decide whether a given piece of terrain provides cover to a given model. This wall? Too short for AT-ST, no cover. This forest? Yeah, that's tall enough., gives the AT-ST cover.

During gameplay, though, it doesn't matter how much of the AT-ST is behind the forest - even if it's just 1%, it gets the cover.

That's probably the part that threw you off.

It turns out we we were doing it right- we just decided mid-game rather than at the beginning so it's no biggy. We just have to be better organised.

The good thing about a casual group is that none of us are likely to try to claim on 1%. Whilst I know we'd all follow the rules if someone wanted to, it seems ungentlemanly to claim cover if the situation doesn't seem to warrant it.

In any case, I'm onboard with the cover rules- they are simple and make sense.

You guys do know this will be changing right?

6 hours ago, Tirion said:

You guys do know this will be changing right?

What will be changing? If you mean the RRG will be updated with information in the email that the developer responded to (posted in this thread), yes we know and that is the main point of this thread.

If you mean something else, no I don't know.