Ok we have a barricade high stone wall the sape of a U or a staple or something similar. Two parts of the wall are parralell to each other and a third wall connects the two.

We have a Rebel Trooper and a Stormtrooper. For simplicity's sake, they're the only troopers left in their units.

Each is in base contact with this wall, on the outsides of the paralell walls. So on the outsides of the straight parts of the U.

RAW neither unit gets a cover bonus if they shoot at each other, since they're both in base contact with the same piece of terrain.

That's a bit silly.

20 minutes ago, Rogue Dakotan said:

Ok we have a barricade high stone wall the sape of a U or a staple or something similar. Two parts of the wall are parralell to each other and a third wall connects the two.

We have a Rebel Trooper and a Stormtrooper. For simplicity's sake, they're the only troopers left in their units.

Each is in base contact with this wall, on the outsides of the paralell walls. So on the outsides of the straight parts of the U.

RAW neither unit gets a cover bonus if they shoot at each other, since they're both in base contact with the same piece of terrain.

That's a bit silly.

I would count each individual wall as a separate piece of terrain. Or use trench rules on it.

In my opinion, it’s probably due to the problems you introduce if trying to cover that specific scenario.

I can imagine scenarios with terrain that would end up causing it to be given when it shouldn’t be.

So they probably erred on the side of simplicity and said not getting it is better than getting it in those corner cases.

2 hours ago, Rogue Dakotan said:

Ok we have a barricade high stone wall the sape of a U or a staple or something similar. Two parts of the wall are parralell to each other and a third wall connects the two.

We have a Rebel Trooper and a Stormtrooper. For simplicity's sake, they're the only troopers left in their units.

Each is in base contact with this wall, on the outsides of the paralell walls. So on the outsides of the straight parts of the U.

RAW neither unit gets a cover bonus if they shoot at each other, since they're both in base contact with the same piece of terrain.

That's a bit silly.

RAW technically say to define custom terrain before the game starts. This is a pretty common one, and IMO I would count each separate piece of wall as a separate piece of terrain. So each unit would only be in contact with one section of the bigger piece of terrain, and they would both get cover.

Why wouldn't they get a cover bonus if they're shooting at each other?

If I'm reading this correctly and they are on the outside of the U (i.e: ST ->U<- RT), the LOS to each other would still be obstructed by 50%, thus granting cover.

I guess I'm confused on which RAW says they wouldn't gain cover?

23 minutes ago, DakDaniels said:

Why wouldn't they get a cover bonus if they're shooting at each other?

If I'm reading this correctly and they are on the outside of the U (i.e: ST ->U<- RT), the LOS to each other would still be obstructed by 50%, thus granting cover.

I guess I'm confused on which RAW says they wouldn't gain cover?

RRG pg. 22: Cover

first bullet under 1. Determine Number of Obscured Miniatures

Quote

If the attacking unit leader’s base is touching a piece of
terrain, that piece of terrain cannot cause a mini in the
defender to be obscured.

7 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

RRG pg. 22: Cover

first bullet under 1. Determine Number of Obscured Miniatures

Ah okay. I see now.

Yeah, that is silly.

16 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

RRG pg. 22: Cover

first bullet under 1. Determine Number of Obscured Miniatures

Ya know, with the updates to the LOS/cover rules I'm not so sure this line is even necessary anymore. If I were one of the designers I would strongly consider just deleting it. That would avoid awkward situations where players may feel they need to say "oh, this thing is technically 3 different pieces of terrain".

Now that cover depends on a point that is above the barricades, this line doesn't come into play unless 2 troopers are very close to each other across a barricade (or awkward situations like OP's).

Maybe they'll leave it in as a catch-all for strangely-shaped custom terrain. Seems to me it would be a little cleaner without it now.

Just now, nashjaee said:

Ya know, with the updates to the LOS/cover rules I'm not so sure this line is even necessary anymore. If I were one of the designers I would strongly consider just deleting it. That would avoid awkward situations where players may feel they need to say "oh, this thing is technically 3 different pieces of terrain".

Now that cover depends on a point that is above the barricades, this line doesn't come into play unless 2 troopers are very close to each other across a barricade (or awkward situations like OP's).

Maybe they'll leave it in as a catch-all for strangely-shaped custom terrain. Seems to me it would be a little cleaner without it now.

At first glance I tend to agree. The oddity to me was that if two Trooper unit leaders were in the same area terrain then neither unit would receive cover...due to this line in the RRG.

17 hours ago, nashjaee said:

Now that cover depends on a point that is above the barricades, this line doesn't come into play unless 2 troopers are very close to each other across a barricade (or awkward situations like OP's).

Interesting, I hadn't thought of the new cover clarification applying to attacking trooper minis, but it does make sense.

To clarify for anyone else, that means that regardless of the line you draw on the ground to determine which defenders are obscured by cover, as long as the barricade you're huddled behind doesn't block your unit leader's LoS to the defenders (and it's hard to imagine when it could), it would never penalize the attacker .

Back to the OP example though, this game has very flexible rules for cover and I think that's a good thing. Players will get better at identifying these situations pre-game, and in competitive tournaments all the terrain will likely be pre-defined with a Tournament Organizer available for clarification if needed.

Its the same if 2 units are both in a area terrain, say a base with some trees. In real life they could be behind trees, but to make it simple no one gets cover.

1 hour ago, chriscook said:

Its the same if 2 units are both in a area terrain, say a base with some trees. In real life they could be behind trees, but to make it simple no one gets cover.

Yeah the rule seems to be intended for more abstrack area terrain, rather than solid walls like in my example.

With any rule interpretation that seems silly, first read the rule carefully from beginning to end. Then ask yourself:

1) what does the intent of RAW seem to be?

2) what are you trying to do (what seems most natural and intuitive to you )?

3) Do the RAW specifically prevent you from doing #2?

In this case, with the option to make your own terrain and designate cover characteristics yourself, the answer to #3 is no.

On 5/15/2018 at 5:22 PM, nashjaee said:

Ya know, with the updates to the LOS/cover rules I'm not so sure this line is even necessary anymore. If I were one of the designers I would strongly consider just deleting it. That would avoid awkward situations where players may feel they need to say "oh, this thing is technically 3 different pieces of terrain".

Now that cover depends on a point that is above the barricades, this line doesn't come into play unless 2 troopers are very close to each other across a barricade (or awkward situations like OP's).

Maybe they'll leave it in as a catch-all for strangely-shaped custom terrain. Seems to me it would be a little cleaner without it now.

It still can be though. Imaging, again, the last unit on a troop squad shooting at the other last unit of a squad. Both are touching the same barricade but on the long edge. But enhanced LOS rules they both get cover from each other, but the rule states that neither of them do. And of course there are areas of cover to consider. A lot of cover discussed is physical 3D stuff. But if you designate an area as tall grass which provides 1 cover, the grass itself does not need to be there only a clearly defined area. Any unit in that zone gets the cover. But that cover is ignored if both attacker and defender are in the tall grass.

I think they need to clarify the rule to say something along the lines of "draw a line from the attacker to the defender, if that line crosses any open ground and cover, the defender is considered to be in cover" That would fix situations where 2 units are clearly in cover despite the RAW saying they aren't because they are both in contact.

20 minutes ago, xbeaker said:

It still can be though. Imaging, again, the last unit on a troop squad shooting at the other last unit of a squad. Both are touching the same barricade but on the long edge. But enhanced LOS rules they both get cover from each other, but the rule states that neither of them do. And of course there are areas of cover to consider. A lot of cover discussed is physical 3D stuff. But if you designate an area as tall grass which provides 1 cover, the grass itself does not need to be there only a clearly defined area. Any unit in that zone gets the cover. But that cover is ignored if both attacker and defender are in the tall grass.

Right, that’s what I meant by “unless 2 troopers are very close to each other across a barricade”. Personally, I don’t think preserving that case is worth the potential hassle created in other cases like OP’s example, but it is what it is.

25 minutes ago, xbeaker said:

draw   a  line from   the attacker to the defender, if that line crosses any open ground and cover, the defender is considered  to be in cover 

It’s a clever thought, but doesn’t work in all situations. Imagine a barricade touching a forest area-terrain, with another barricade touching on the other side. Or 2 barricades inside area terrain. The line never touches open ground.

25 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

Right, that’s what I meant by “unless 2 troopers are very close to each other across a barricade”. Personally, I don’t think preserving that case is worth the potential hassle created in other cases like OP’s example, but it is what it is.

It’s a clever thought, but doesn’t work in all situations. Imagine a barricade touching a forest area-terrain, with another barricade touching on the other side. Or 2 barricades inside area terrain. The line never touches open ground.

Sorry I meant to clarify that I thought that is what you were saying in the first one. I trimmed my initial post down when I saw that I thought we were already on the same page there. But yeah, you have the right of it.

Good point on the second one.. Maybe just use use it to specify exceptions to the 'touching the same cover rule.' If the attacker and defender are in contact with the same cover, draw a line from the attacker to the defender, if that line crosses clear ground or a different cover/terrain from the one(s) they are jointly touching, the defender is considered to be in cover"

This will also help clear up situations where 2 units are attacking each other within the same tall grass zone but have a barricade between them that they aren't both touching.

I strongly doubt there is a way to craft the cover rule enough that it won't require common sense to interpret who does and doesn't have cover. If you interpret the rules literally any large piece of terrain loses it's defensive cover the same way. That could, technically, include really silly things like buildings or other structures.

The intent of the rules are clearly to define when the terrain adjacent to the firing mini interferes from its perspective. If you wanted a rules correction I'd say to add a caveat to how far away the cover can be--i.e. "firing unit is in base contact with terrain not more than 1" deep".

1 hour ago, Beerasaurus said:

I strongly doubt there is a way to craft the cover rule enough that it won't require common sense to interpret who does and doesn't have cover. If you interpret the rules literally any large piece of terrain loses it's defensive cover the same way. That could, technically, include really silly things like buildings or other structures.

The intent of the rules are clearly to define when the terrain adjacent to the firing mini interferes from its perspective. If you wanted a rules correction I'd say to add a caveat to how far away the cover can be--i.e. "firing unit is in base contact with terrain not more than 1" deep".

But then you get the odd questions...

Like...

... ”What’s an Inch?”

5 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

... ”What’s an Inch?”

Bahahaha! I'm so used to other games I totally forgot.

Within Move 1?
Before the knuckle of Move 2?
Equal to or less than the length of an average Bothan baby's foot?

?