One unit which is on the floor(height 0) could attack a unit which is in height 1 or 2.???

Theoretically , there is no line of sight from the top of the mini in hight 0 to the other unit.

Is this wrong???

If i am wrong... is there any advantage when attacking from a higher level?

Thanks.

14 minutes ago, enekolob said:

One unit which is on the floor(height 0) could attack a unit which is in height 1 or 2.???

Theoretically , there is no line of sight from the top of the mini in hight 0 to the other unit.

Is this wrong???

If i am wrong... is there any advantage when attacking from a higher level?

Thanks.

As long as you can see any part of the model, then you have line of sight and can attack. Doesn't matter what height of terrain they are on.

There are no rules that give height an advantage. However, there is an advantage via geometry, where it can be easier to find angles where you can see units without cover. Depending on the terrain, it can also be a defensive position. You could stand at the edge and shoot the opponent, then move back away from the edge to be impossible to see. Could be a good place to hide a unit that is holding an objective in the Supplies mission.

Plenty of advantages via gameplay, but not via the rules necessarily.

49 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

As long as you can see any part of the model, then you have line of sight and can attack. Doesn't matter what height of terrain they are on.

There are no rules that give height an advantage. However, there is an advantage via geometry, where it can be easier to find angles where you can see units without cover. Depending on the terrain, it can also be a defensive position. You could stand at the edge and shoot the opponent, then move back away from the edge to be impossible to see. Could be a good place to hide a unit that is holding an objective in the Supplies mission.

Plenty of advantages via gameplay, but not via the rules necessarily.

I don't think that's quite right given the RRG and the clarifications posted by the designer.

I'm working on a series of diagrams to illustrate and will make a post later to clarify, but right now it seems that units on terrain above the hight of an attacker *must* by geometry always gain cover from the terrain they are standing on.

I'm fairly certain this is not intended, but I don't see any way to follow the rules procedures as written and not come to this result.

Designer's clarified rules state :

Quote

The player checks line of sight from the attacker's unit leader to each mini in the defending unit. If any part of the defending mini, including its base, is blocked by a piece of terrain or other mini the player traces an imaginary line from the center of the base of the attacker's unit leader to the center of the base of the defending mini.

Here is a diagram that illustrates the issue for troopers:

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/4142536

Forgive my poor illustration, but in the upper left I have attempted to show the surfaces that one would expect to be visible on a model, by highlighting in green what would not be facing away from a viewer. You'll note specifically that because the base is basically a cylinder, you always expect to see a full 1/2 of the ring around the base.

Below it you will see that for a figure placed right at the edge of elevated terrain, you are able to see much less than half of the cylinder. No matter how far away you get, there is still some portion of that expected visible base which is blocked by the terrain. Therefore the second clause is *always* triggered.

The blue indicates how an imaginary line measured from center point of base to center point of base also must by definition cross through the terrain the upper mini is standing on. Therefore the mini always gains cover.

This is perhaps not unreasonable for troopers, as they can lay prone and still fire over an edge, however it is quite absurd for the taller walkers and speeders.

54 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

I  don't think that's quite right given the RRG and the clarifications posted by the designer.

I'm working on a series  of diagrams to illustrate and will make a post later to clarify, but right now it seems that units on terrain above the hight of an attacker *must* by geometry always gain cover from the terrain they are standing o  n  .

I think you’re correct, and that diagram is pretty helpful in demonstrating the geometry involved.

To clarify what I meant: judging from comments I’ve seen around here, seems like some game systems have things like: an elevated unit gets +1 damage against the defender, or ignores a save, etc. Legion doesn’t have anything like that, and that’s what I meant by “no rules that give height an advantage”. The advantages are purely geometrical.

I can’t speak to whether it’s intended or not, but I hope it is and that they keep it. Would be good to incentivize exploring 3D terrain in-game. Perhaps taller minis need some kind of exception, as you said?

1 hour ago, CaptainRocket said:

I don't think that's quite right given the RRG and the clarifications posted by the designer.

I'm working on a series of diagrams to illustrate and will make a post later to clarify, but right now it seems that units on terrain above the hight of an attacker *must* by geometry always gain cover from the terrain they are standing on.

I'm fairly certain this is not intended, but I don't see any way to follow the rules procedures as written and not come to this result.

Designer's clarified rules state :

Here is a diagram that illustrates the issue for troopers:

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/4142536

Forgive my poor illustration, but in the upper left I have attempted to show the surfaces that one would expect to be visible on a model, by highlighting in green what would not be facing away from a viewer. You'll note specifically that because the base is basically a cylinder, you always expect to see a full 1/2 of the ring around the base.

Below it you will see that for a figure placed right at the edge of elevated terrain, you are able to see much less than half of the cylinder. No matter how far away you get, there is still some portion of that expected visible base which is blocked by the terrain. Therefore the second clause is *always* triggered.

The blue indicates how an imaginary line measured from center point of base to center point of base also must by definition cross through the terrain the upper mini is standing on. Therefore the mini always gains cover.

This is perhaps not unreasonable for troopers, as they can lay prone and still fire over an edge, however it is quite absurd for the taller walkers and speeders.

That is incorrect. Yes they are always eligible for cover, but if it is decided pregame that a piece of terrain doesn't grant cover to a unit type it cannot gain cover from that type of terrain no matter what. So your example of it being absurd for taller walkers and speeders is irrelevant as pregame you would simply agree to not allow it to grant cover to those units.

1 hour ago, nashjaee said:

I think you’re correct, and that diagram is pretty helpful in demonstrating the geometry involved.

[...]

I can’t speak to whether it’s intended or not, but I hope it is and that they keep it. Would be good to incentivize exploring 3D terrain in-game. Perhaps taller minis need some kind of exception, as you said?

Yes, I agree. I rather like this general effect. It's elegant and it gives a nice incentive to go high to counter act being exposed. ?

1 hour ago, SwdPwnzDggr said:

Yes they are always eligible for cover, but if it is decided pregame that a piece of terrain doesn't grant cover to a unit type it cannot gain cover from that type of terrain no matter what. So your example of it being absurd for taller walkers and speeders is irrelevant as pregame you would simply agree to not allow it to grant cover to those units.

That a fair point, and it may provide an elegant solution... however I'm not sure that's sufficient until I do all my diagrams. I will try to describe some of my uncertainty until then...

Imagine you have a flat box, say a few inches high and two feet by two feet (imagine you bought a briefcase and put that box on the table).

Now ahead you time you declare that this box is terrain, and blocks line of sight to troopers, but not airspeeders (in hopes of avoiding the above dilema).

When a trooper is a foot away from the box, and a speeder is a few inches away from the box, you will be fine. The trooper will *not* see entire miniature (specifically the base), the imaginary line from center base to center base *will* cross through the box... BUT... the terrain was predeclared to not provide cover! (WHEW)

HOWEVER , as that trooper gets closer to the box there will come a point where only the very front of the airspeeder's guns are visible. It still gets to proceed to the next step, and again the imaginary line from center base to center base *will* cross through the box, the terrain was predeclared to not provide cover, and now ... it seems very frustrating. The same thing will happen as the airspeeder moves back away from the edge of the box. Only the tiniest infinitesimal wingtip must be visible, and the speeder will get no cover.

The long and short of it it, is that vehicles are less likely to get cover (which I guess is good) but the angles are not consistent between unit types . I.e. You could see 30% of one type of unit and it would get cover, and you could see an equivalent 30% of another unit and it will not. That feels... weird?

Also weird is that the same amount of occlusion might behave differently if things can be placed on it or not. Imagine you have a wall, the same height as the box. When placed next to the airspeeder, it's clear that this wall covers three quarters of the airspeeder... not quite all of of it, but certainly enough to provide cover. You declare this wall to provide cover... and you place it jutting out diagonally from one of the corners of the box. Now put an airspeeder behind the box and another behind the wall with a trooper equidistant from both. The trooper will shoot at the one behind the wall with full cover, and the one behind the box with none, despite both being the same height.

Perhaps these 'precision' errors are acceptable given that we want a fast playing miniatures game where we are approximating the movement of people and machines? I am curious to hear other opinions or solutions.

I realize this is an extension of our conversation from the other forum...but I think it's a part of the game you need to either accept or consider a deal breaker ? My understanding from this since last Gen Con is that Legion is intended to have somewhat lighter, faster to grasp rules than many other more in-depth war games. A more simplistic cover system will be part of that. It is not meant to be a reality simulator...there are other games that try harder for that.

55 minutes ago, Turan said:

I realize this is an extension of our conversation from the other forum...but I think it's a part of the game you need to either accept or consider a deal breaker ? My understanding from this since last Gen Con is that Legion is intended to have somewhat lighter, faster to grasp rules than many other more in-depth war games. A more simplistic cover system will be part of that. It is not meant to be a reality simulator...there are other games that try harder for that.

I should have time to finish my diagrams this weekend, but I am growing more comfortable with the this angular precision error.

I got caught up on the idea that the same % visible should have the same effect on visibility/cover, but to be fair troopers are better at hiding than vehicles, and the same %for both is actually wildly different actual exposed surface (such that a vehicle 5% visible is close to 50% visible of a trooper anyhow)...

I was mostly concerned about the system being completely broken with regards to vehicles, but SwdPwnzDggr did point out an elegant solution for that, so if everyone actually has consensus on how the rules work and the general way we'd evaluate terrain I think I may be coming around to it.

The advantage of being elevated is you can see over other stuff, as True Line of Sight dictates. There isn't a specific mechanical advantage, only a more nebulous positional advantage.

8 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

I was mostly concerned about the system being completely broken with regards to vehicles, but SwdPwnzDggr did point out an elegant solution for that, so if everyone actually has consensus on how the rules work and the general way we'd evaluate terrain I think I may be coming around to it.

I scanned through the post, which part are you looking for consensus for? The RRG says that "all that matters is that players agree on which terrain to use and the rules governing that terrain before playing the game."

So the rules say it's a gentleman's agreement for each match. I haven't read the tournament rules, but I imagine if you're into the competitive scene the terrain there might have its attributes dictated by that venue. Otherwise...you just have to figure it out with whomever you're playing with. There are no hard guidelines.

On 5/24/2018 at 8:24 PM, Turan said:

I scanned through the post, which part are you looking for consensu  s for?  The RRG says that "all that matters is that players agree on which terrain to use and the rules governing that terrain before playing the game."

So the rules say it's a gentleman's agreement for each match. I haven't read the tournament rules, but I imagine if you're into the competitive scene the terrain there might have its attributes dictated by that venue. Otherwise...you just have to figure it out with whomever you're playing with. There are no hard guidelines.

I think there's a number of things about the way LOS works that are nuanced and not intuitive (as seen by this thread). I'm coming around to liking the consensus we have on this thread, but that doesn't change the fact that at the moment many folks will start a match with their own slightly divergent expectations.

It won't be fun at all if the large majority of players don't understand the nuance. If pregame is not just a simple verification of what kind of terrain we expect to be what kind of cover, but rather always includes a complex discussion of how cover works. If we have to argue different interpretations without example driven confirmation by the designers...

On 5/23/2018 at 12:22 PM, SwdPwnzDggr said:

That is incorrect. Yes they are always eligible for cover, but if it is decided pregame that a piece of terrain doesn't grant cover to a unit type it cannot gain cover from that type of terrain no matter what. So your example of it being absurd for taller walkers and speeders is irrelevant as pregame you would simply agree to not allow it to grant cover to those units.

So after mulling on this some more and finishing my diagrams I am no longer convinced this is a credible solution to the dilema.

I can't imagine convincing my opponents that any terrain which can have vehicle units move over it should grant no cover to those units. There's just too many folks who will say, it's tall enough to cover 50% of the bike/speeder/walker so it should provide cover.

I've illustrated what will happen in those cases a bit more in this thread:

2 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

So after mulling on this some more and finishing my diagrams I am no longer convinced this is a credible solution to the dilema.

I can't imagine convincing my opponents that any terrain which can have vehicle units move over it should grant no cover to those units. There's just too many folks who will say, it's tall enough to cover 50% of the bike/speeder/walker so it should provide cover.

So? It sounds like this issue is about your ability to enjoy the game vs. your need to apply realism to it. That's a fine desire for you to have, but it's not really something other people can help you with unless you're trying to come up with a set of house rules to use with your friends. (And, incidentally, I'm with those people - in the movies we clearly see speeder vehicles hugging the ground except for short bursts of going higher, even the airspeeders are not depicted as consistently flying at heights. I don't know why you'd want them to ignore the cover.)

The terrain rules as written are perfectly sensible for making sure everyone knows how the battlefield is going to function before play.

1 hour ago, Turan said:

So? It sounds like this issue is about your ability to enjoy the game vs. your need to apply realism to it.

[...]

The terrain rules as written are perfectly sensible for making sure everyone knows how the battlefield is going to function before play.

The recent rules change was justified by Alex explicitly on the grounds of the previous rules being 'immersion breaking' , not 'dysfunctional for play'.

I am attempting to point out that there are still some immersion breaking situations.

Quote

... I'm with those people - in the movies we clearly see speeder vehicles hugging the ground except for short bursts of going higher, even the airspeeders are not depicted as consistently flying at heights. I don't know why you'd want them to ignore the cover.

I don't want them to ignore cover - that was SwdPwnzDggr 's suggestion which I found initially compelling, but now am questioning precisely because I expect the reaction from other players like you.

My problem is that I find it hard to stomach that when they (a speeder or tall walker which are big targets) are 99.9% visible, they get cover if standing on something, but at the same range and on the ground plane they wont get cover with the same degree of visibility.

I also find it confounding that the same degree of visibility will sometimes provide cover, and sometimes not, depending on the height of what it's standing.

6 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

I don't want them to ignore cover

Sorry...this has become a convoluted thread, and you said

7 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

I can't imagine convincing my opponents that any terrain which can have vehicle units move over it should grant no cover to those units.

Which implies you want to convince them.

As for

6 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

My problem is that I find it hard to stomach that when they (a speeder or tall walker which are big targets) are 99.9% visible, they get cover if standing on something, but at the same range and on the ground plane they wont get cover with the same degree of visibility.

I'm trying to see which of your diagrams represents this. From your textual description, it sounds like that could only happen if the .1% obscuring is happening from terrain that isn't placed at ground level to block the center-to-center line. Or if the blocking terrain was defined in pre-game not to provide cover to that kind of unit, in which case it wouldn't matter if they were standing on it or at ground level.

6 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

I also find it confounding that the same degree of visibility will sometimes provide cover, and sometimes not, depending on the height of what it's standing.

Again, which diagram are you describing with this? I don't see how this is true...it would only depend on whether the terrain was defined in pre-game to provide cover to that unit, not what height it's standing on. For example, in your bottom diagram the AT-ST isn't getting cover in one position and not in the other because of a difference in height, it's because you're stating one terrain was defined to give it cover and the other wasn't.

It just seems like you're introducing extra levels of complexity for yourself by thinking about it in terms of height - X piece of terrain is defined to give cover or not, and that's whether the unit is behind it or on top of it above the attacker's head level. The pure height has nothing else to do with it.

1 hour ago, Turan said:

Quote

My problem is that I find it hard to stomach that when they (a speeder or tall walker which are big targets) are 99.9% visible, they get cover if standing on something, but at the same range and on the ground plane they wont get cover with the same degree of visibility.

I'm trying to see which of your diagrams represents this. From your textual description, it sounds like that could only happen if the .1% obscuring is happening from terrain that isn't placed at ground level to block the center-to-center line. Or if the blocking terrain was defined in pre-game not to provide cover to that kind of unit, in which case it wouldn't matter if they were standing on it or at ground level.

23,26, and 24 all illustrate cases where a miniature is almost 100% visible, yet receives cover by virtue of standing on the terrain.

However in all those cases, if the miniature was at the same distance, only 49% visible behind the exact same piece of terrain, it would receive no cover.

Quote

Quote

I also find it confounding that the same degree of visibility will sometimes provide cover, and sometimes not, depending on the height of what it's standing.

Again, which diagram are you describing with this? I don't see how this is true...it would only depend on whether the terrain was defined in pre-game to provide cover to that unit, not what height it's standing on. For example, in your bottom diagram the AT-ST isn't getting cover in one position and not in the other because of a difference in height, it's because you're stating one terrain was defined to give it cover and the other wasn't.

Yet the height of the terrain is what was used to determine wether it gives cover or not. Transitively the ultimate cause is the difference in height of the terrain.

To me that latter case is particularly immersion breaking... I can almost justify the former by saying it's slightly harder to aim and shoot up than at ground plane cause of where our instincts evolved to look for threats (pay no attention to the alien species or vehicle weapons systems)... but the latter case is just weird. Granted it may not happen that often... *shrug*

12 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

23,26, and 24 all illustrate cases where a miniature is almost 100% visible, yet receives cover by virtue of standing on the terrain.

However in all those cases, if the miniature was at the same distance, only 49% visible behind the exact same piece of terrain, it would receive no cover.

I'm looking at those diagrams and I don't see how that can happen. Unless they're on the ground and the base is so far over that the center-to-center line doesn't go through the terrain. But if they're actually behind the terrain, how would they not receive cover from it? It's impossible to have a specific piece of terrain that provides cover to a unit standing on top but not the same unit standing behind it.

12 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

Yet the height of the terrain is what was used to determine wether it gives cover or not.

Only because you're choosing to say so. The way it actually works before a game is both opponents decide from what makes sense, the idea that it blocks line of sight to half or more of the miniature is explicitly stated to be a general concept, and the RRG states that all that matters is that the two players come to an agreement.

12 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

immersion breaking... I can almost justify

I'm just going to bow out, because it keeps coming back to this and I understand it's your sticking point. However, it's not something that anyone else can help you with. These rules are not intended to be justifiable in realistic terms, they're intended to be more easily accessible than the heavier minis wargames.

After reading this thread, my initial reaction and how I expect we'll house rule it (until there's an official confirmation) is that when behind the terrain, you use the pre-agreed cover or not. 50% hidden we'll likely decide that's cover for the vehicle. However we'll also decide when ON the terrain, the vehicle gets no cover, unless the terrain is complex and parts exist that do still cover > 50% of the model or it's area terrain.

For troopers, I'd prefer the other option. Behind the terrain you might get total LOS blocking and no ability to be shot (or just cover depending on % visible). ON the terrain however, I'd be ok with getting light cover for anyone shooting up at you (with agreement on required height difference needed). It provides an incentive for the opponent to also seek higher ground to remove that cover advantage, or indeed reach even higher ground and gain a cover advantage themselves. Whilst on the flip side, being on that higher ground even with +1 light cover, you are now more visible and likely to be shot at by more units than had you hugged one side of the terrain.

iow we'll likely play it as: for vehicles, cover applies when you're BEHIND it, or IN it, not ON it. For troopers, cover applies whether you're BEHIND it, IN it, or ON it.

No idea how the official rules will fall on this one, but that's how we'll likely interpret it atm.

6 hours ago, DwainDibbly said:

However we'll also decide when ON the terrain, the vehicle gets no cover

I considered this as a solution, however it means vehicles are much less likely to get cover even in circumstances when they likely should.

*shrugs helplessly*

For house rules I'd give troopers the full benefit of the cover when on it. There just needs to be more incentive to go vertical IMO.