I'm not sure what the percentage represents in reference to 24, 25, 26.

3 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

I'm not sure what the percentage represents in reference to 24, 25, 26.

% of the model that LOS is blocked for.

It's not used for determining anything, just interesting to note as a possible immersion breaking problem for some...

I have added an additional chart that shows how cover works according to Rules Ref 1.0.

Hopefully you and an opponent can now use them both to agree on one or the other before playing a game!

Quote

Well this changes EVERYTHING!

(not really, but get ready for diagrams version 2.5)!

Honestly wouldn't change much for units on buildings, since their feet would still be "hidden" from most angles.

6 minutes ago, Deuzerre said:

Honestly wouldn't change much for units on buildings, since their feet would still be "hidden" from most angles.

Yup, I just updated and the only case which changed was the snowspeeder.

I'm mostly happy now that it can reference official rulings and is not nitpicked on Facebook as baseless speculation about possible future rules! ?

1 hour ago, CaptainRocket said:

Yup, I just updated and the only case which changed was the snowspeeder.

What about this? Wouldn't the 50% cover line ignore the base and stand?

Ya, I think you missed that they are excluding the peg and base for mini’s with a clear peg

24 minutes ago, Contrapulator said:

What about this? Wouldn't the 50% cover line ignore the base and stand?

Their clarified ruling makes no mention of, and does not impact the "Cover Type" section of the "ADDITIONAL TERRAIN RULES" on page 8 of the Rules Reference 1.0

Quote

The following sub point should be added under step “1. Determine Number of Obscured Minis” of the “Cover” glossary entry in the Rules Reference:

“When determining whether a piece of terrain or another mini blocks line of sight to a defending mini, if there is a clear peg separating the defending mini and its base, the clear peg and the base are not treated as a part of the mini.”

This ruling only impacts the "COVER" section on page 22.

As a result, the determination of what terrain provides what cover to which unit pre-game remains unchanged.

The change is used only when determining if you have an unblocked Line of Sight (to see if you trace a line from center case to center base).

The fact remains that the line marked 50% in the diagram is actually blocking none of the airspeeder. Quoting the section you referenced, "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."

Fair, but with the exception of the modification to page 22, as it stands now "the mini" is everywhere else defined as model plus base.

Aside from that consider that it's very easy to measure the total height of the model, plus stand plus base and figure out what is half of that. Measuring what is half of the model minus peg is slightly more cumbersome.

I can see them clarifying the rule either way because one would be more logical, but the other simpler and more consistent and has relatively little practical difference.

Thanks for putting my name on that one!

Oh ... And thanks for the great update!

Good point captainrocket. They didn’t mention whether it applies pre-game anywhere(so it doesn’t)

i feel like that’s another oversight myself. May need an email sent.

These are super helpful; nice work.

Numbers 23-25 still seem a little odd to me. You wouldn't normally ever be able to see the rear or bottom of a minis base, but I guess you could argue you can't see its feet from the downward angle.

Frankly I do think the whole cover system is a little unnecessarily complex. The fact that you even need to go through the hard work of making extensive charts like this speaks to that.

I think it would be a lot simpler just to do a "50%" test on each mini from the unit leader when you check to see if they are obscured, rather than a whole three step process with 1) pre-game 50% height test, 2) LOS from unit leader and 3) line drawing from center to center.

In other words, the rule could just say something like this:

Determine number of obscured minis: “The player checks line of sight from the attacker's unit leader to each mini in the defending unit. If at least 50% of the target mini, including its base, is blocked by a piece of terrain or a ground vehicle, the mini is obscured.

Determine cover: If at least half of a unit's minis are obscured, that unit gains cover. Additionally, trooper units gain cover if at least half the unit's minis are in area terrain.

That would be much simpler and result in more common sense application, I think.

2 hours ago, Orkimedes said:

These are super helpful; nice work.

Numbers 23-25 still seem a little odd to me. You wouldn't normally ever be able to see the rear or bottom of a minis base, but I guess you could argue you can't see its feet from the downward angle.

Frankly I do think the whole cover system is a little unnecessarily complex. The fact that you even need to go through the hard work of making extensive charts like this speaks to that.

I think it would be a lot simpler just to do a "50%" test on each mini from the unit leader when you check to see if they are obscured, rather than a whole three step process with 1) pre-game 50% height test, 2) LOS from unit leader and 3) line drawing from center to center.

In other words, the rule could just say something like this:

Determine number of obscured minis: “The player checks line of sight from the attacker's unit leader to each mini in the defending unit. If at least 50% of the target mini, including its base, is blocked by a piece of terrain or a ground vehicle, the mini is obscured.

Determine cover: If at least half of a unit's minis are obscured, that unit gains cover. Additionally, trooper units gain cover if at least half the unit's minis are in area terrain.

That would be much simpler and result in more common sense application, I think.

That is actually a more complicated system to use during a game.

It leads to debates and discussions about whether its covered 50% or not because it is modified by the angle of the viewing mini, complicated by whether you can realisticly get down to the mini's view point etc.

Doing it pre-game causes none of the complications presented by using the current angle of the attacker. You just do a raw can this cover 50% comparison from dead in front of it.

27 minutes ago, Thoras said:

That is actually a more complicated system to use during a game.

It leads to debates and discussions about whether its covered 50% or not because it is modified by the angle of the viewing mini, complicated by whether you can realisticly get down to the mini's view point etc.

Doing it pre-game causes none of the complications presented by using the current angle of the attacker. You just do a raw can this cover 50% comparison from dead in front of it.

I could see that, in theory, but in practice I feel like 99% of cases are pretty obvious. This is how 40k does it, and arguments about what's in cover and what isn't are pretty rare (in 8th edition anyway). Generally you either have a clear view of your target, or they are immediately behind some bit of cover or in area terrain.

5 hours ago, Orkimedes said:

These are super helpful; nice work.

Numbers 23-25 still seem a little odd to me. You wouldn't normally ever be able to see the rear or bottom of a minis base, but I guess you could argue you can't see its feet from the downward angle.

You're welcome!

23-25 are not about the rear or bottom of a mini's base, rather they are about the sides of the base facing you that you would normally see, but get blocked by the edge of the terrain because they are not right up against it.

Think of a soda can. You can only ever see 1/2 of it. But if you put it on a shelf above you, you see even less than 1/2. You see the full height of the can only on the vertical strip right at the edge. As you get further from the edge, a tiny bit more of the the sides of the can is blocked by the edge. A mini's base is just a short cylinder like a soda can.

7 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

You're welcome!

23-25 are not about the rear or bottom of a mini's base, rather they are about the sides of the base facing you that you would normally see, but get blocked by the edge of the terrain because they are not right up against it.

Think of a soda can. You can only ever see 1/2 of it. But if you put it on a shelf above you, you see even less than 1/2. You see the full height of the can only on the vertical strip right at the edge. As you get further from the edge, a tiny bit more of the the sides of the can is blocked by the edge. A mini's base is just a short cylinder like a soda can.

Yeah, good point. I think that is right by RAW. It just feels weird; since the 50% test is done pregame while the mini is behind the referenced terrain, but during the game it is essentially a 0% test, and can lead to situations where nearly all of the mini is visible but it still technically has cover.

I love your diagrams by the way. What program do you use to draw those?

8 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

You're welcome!

23-25 are not about the rear or bottom of a mini's base, rather they are about the sides of the base facing you that you would normally see, but get blocked by the edge of the terrain because they are not right up against it.

Think of a soda can. You can only ever see 1/2 of it. But if you put it on a shelf above you, you see even less than 1/2. You see the full height of the can only on the vertical strip right at the edge. As you get further from the edge, a tiny bit more of the the sides of the can is blocked by the edge. A mini's base is just a short cylinder like a soda can.

But no matter where I'm standing, if that mini has it's back turned to me, I will never see the part you shaded red. I do not believe it should be getting cover. Nothing is obscuring your line of sight to any part of the mini that you could normally see.

6 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

But no matter where I'm standing, if that mini has it's back turned to me, I will never see the part you shaded red. I do not believe it should be getting cover. Nothing is obscuring your line of sight to any part of the mini that you could normally see.

The blocked LOS is not caused by self occlusion or the backside of the mini.

It is part of the base you could normally see being blocked by the edge of the terrain. Geometry dictates that it *must* be blocked.

Maybe this diagram is clearer...

8 hours ago, Orkimedes said:

Yeah, good point. I think that is right by RAW. It just feels weird; since the 50% test is done pregame while the mini is behind the referenced terrain, but during the game it is essentially a 0% test, and can lead to situations where nearly all of the mini is visible but it still technically has cover.

I love your diagrams by the way. What program do you use to draw those?

Thank you! I use Adobe Illustrator.

I thought it was weird at first, but now I kinda like it cause it's simple - above always gets cover - and encourages some verticality.

I miss some ruling and cleareance for the number 7. It works just this way, if any mini other than the leader of the attacking unit has no LOS to any mini of the defender, just than you get no die for that mini.

If there is no LOS to any mini from the leader, that minis counts as in cover, while check the units cover.

7 hours ago, The Bishop said:

If there is no LOS to any mini from the leader, that minis counts as in cover, while check the units cover.

Quote

Cover

2. Form Attack Pool: The attack pool consists of all the dice the attacker will roll against this defender. When forming the attack pool, players follow these substeps in order:

   1. Determine Eligible Minis: Each mini in the attacker is eligible to contribute to the attack pool if that mini has line of sight to any mini in the defender.

The leader is treated like any other mini with regards to contributing dice. If your unit consists of only one mini, it is the leader to itself, and cannot contribute dice if it has no LOS.

On 6/9/2018 at 2:39 PM, CaptainRocket said:

The blocked LOS is not caused by self occlusion or the backside of the mini.

It is part of the base you could normally see being blocked by the edge of the terrain. Geometry dictates that it *must* be blocked.

Maybe this diagram is clearer...

I guess I'm not really on board with line of sight having depth in regards to cover. The closest parts of the mini are fully visible to me in all 3 of those pictures. That's what should matter (IMO). I would be interested in how Alex would rule in this scenario.