14 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

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.

That's what's lovely about geometry. It doesn't really need you to be on board with it. ?

Do consider the rules don't say you check the 'closest' part of a mini when determining if LOS is blocked - and in fact they can't.

If a storm trooper leader pointing away from the attacker has their hand (which is further than their head) behind terrain, it will still trigger a check. Practically determining the surfaces closest to an attacker for a complex geometry like a mini is simply not practical in real life.

Determining whether all surfaces facing the attacker and not self-occluded are blocked, is however quite reasonable. Humans are very good at distinguishing object outlines and overlaps with other objects.

Likewise there's a practical matter with regards to cover and elevation which the current rules take care of very cleanly. Since as a consequence of geometry the base is always blocked, then elevation always grants cover. Easy and simple to check.

Say that was not the case, and now you needed to determine if well and truely for real the lip of terrain blocked line of sight to the miniature (excluding the base for arguments sake), then now you need to get your head down and try to look up and see, is the unit not far back enough, that the height of the base still leaves their feet visible? Imagine doing this in a city street? In a narrow alley? It would be clunky and error prone and lead to general groaning and dissatisfaction anytime somebody moved units onto terrain. As the rule stands it's just as easy no matter how crowded or convoluted the terrain is.

Now perhaps non of this is what the designer intends, but it is how the rules interact. If being at the edge of terrain is supposed to be exposed, the way to fix that is to add a rule to the effect. I hope that's not the case however as it would become yet another dissincentive against ever climbing/clambering.

Outside of the rule specifics, I like the idea of troops with a height advantage over their attackers (agreed prior to the game just like other terrain cover) gaining light cover. It provides incentives to take advantage of elevated positions and fits in with the idea of troopers moving around on top of a hill/building, moving to the edge to fire, retreating a little and repositioning.

For vehicles, I'm less inclined to want them gaining cover 1. Although in the name of simplicity if that's what the rules are or an opponent wanted to play that way and it was agreed before hand, I also wouldn't object.

3 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

That's what's lovely about geometry. It doesn't really need you to be on board with it. ?

Do consider the rules don't say you check the 'closest' part of a mini when determining if LOS is blocked - and in fact they can't.

If a storm trooper leader pointing away from the attacker has their hand (which is further than their head) behind terrain, it will still trigger a check. Practically determining the surfaces closest to an attacker for a complex geometry like a mini is simply not practical in real life.

Determining whether all surfaces facing the attacker and not self-occluded are blocked, is however quite reasonable. Humans are very good at distinguishing object outlines and overlaps with other objects.

Likewise there's a practical matter with regards to cover and elevation which the current rules take care of very cleanly. Since as a consequence of geometry the base is always blocked, then elevation always grants cover. Easy and simple to check.

Say that was not the case, and now you needed to determine if well and truely for real the lip of terrain blocked line of sight to the miniature (excluding the base for arguments sake), then now you need to get your head down and try to look up and see, is the unit not far back enough, that the height of the base still leaves their feet visible? Imagine doing this in a city street? In a narrow alley? It would be clunky and error prone and lead to general groaning and dissatisfaction anytime somebody moved units onto terrain. As the rule stands it's just as easy no matter how crowded or convoluted the terrain is.

Now perhaps non of this is what the designer intends, but it is how the rules interact. If being at the edge of terrain is supposed to be exposed, the way to fix that is to add a rule to the effect. I hope that's not the case however as it would become yet another dissincentive against ever climbing/clambering.

I understand how geometry works. I didn't say I didn't agree with your application of it. I don't agree with the rules working that way. Thankfully the rules don't tell us to apply geometric principles to our gameplay (because that could bog things down). We are told to look with our eyes and go with what we see. The rules DO tell us to get down and take a look.

If the intent was figures with a height advantage always gain cover, the rules could just state that outright instead of someone needing to create illustrations to show the geometry at work.

If the only part blocked by the terrain in your diagrams is the red shaded areas of the base, I would wager a majority of players wouldn't even notice the difference between the 3 perspectives and would say no cover.

If it is intended to work as your diagram shows, we probably will need a clarification. If it isn't, we probably still need a clarification.

2 hours ago, DwainDibbly said:

Outside of the rule specifics, I like the idea of troops with a height advantage over their attackers (agreed prior to the game just like other terrain cover) gaining light cover. It provides incentives to take advantage of elevated positions and fits in with the idea of troopers moving around on top of a hill/building, moving to the edge to fire, retreating a little and repositioning.

For vehicles, I'm less inclined to want them gaining cover 1. Although in the name of simplicity if that's what the rules are or an opponent wanted to play that way and it was agreed before hand, I also wouldn't object.

Well most buildings or solid objects provide heavy cover, so in most cases of units gaining cover from the terrain they are standing on, it will be heavy cover.

Not sure I'd like applying heavy cover on a rooftop, unless the rooftop itself had walls around it or further cover. Unlike being in a building or partially behind where heavy cover makes sense (depending on material and pre-agreement anyway).

That said, as with most rules, as long as you both agree before hand and cover this as part of the deciding terrain cover stage, I'd play with either value even though my preference would be light cover when on an elevated but exposed rooftop.

48 minutes ago, DwainDibbly said:

Not sure I'd like applying heavy cover on a rooftop, unless the rooftop itself had walls around it or further cover. Unlike being in a building or partially behind where heavy cover makes sense (depending on material and pre-agreement anyway).

That said, as with most rules, as long as you both agree before hand and cover this as part of the deciding terrain cover stage, I'd play with either value even though my preference would be light cover when on an elevated but exposed rooftop.

Yeah, and that's fine if you and your opponent agree.

22 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

If it is intended to work as your diagram shows, we probably will need a clarification. If it isn't, we probably still need a clarification.

Well, there's no point in debating rule intent .

In terms of what seems like a better direction for the game, I have to say that despite my original discomfort I have come to appreciate a literal reading of the rule for a number of reasons:

The problem with getting down and looking in this case is that it's, very cumbersome, often ambiguous, and complex. After that hassle many players will point out they can't see part of the base (this is how I even got into this topic), and the reality is that they're not wrong . Furthermore, in some cases a figure will be high enough at the same distance that terrain will block the feet not just the base (and it's hard to see cause the base is in the way).

if you want the rules to work the way you describe, you will need to add another clause and way of defining when the base should or should not be considered or what part of the base. Avoiding adding complexity to this topic seems also like a positive.

With the rules as written it's very simple and black and white. So speed of play and elimination of a point of judgement both seem better this way.

Additionally it encourages verticality , again that seems better and more interesting.

is it ambiguous for most player? I don't know. On any given discussion I've had about this my experience has been that the majority of people quickly get it and come consensus. What I suppose could be considered a negative is that the smaller number of folks who don't get it, or more often disagree with the consequence of it (don't like to give out so much cover for verticality), tend to feel very strongly about it. That's a fair negative, as we want the game to be friendly and accesible.

Finally the vehicles are inconsistent at terrain different heights and in amount exposed . This bothered me a lot at first, but i'm not sure there's a way to clean it up without more complexity, and in practice it's easy to adopt to and plan around. A fair negative, but I'm inclined to treat it as more of a wash given the simplicity benefit.

In the balance I've come to think the way the rules are described right now function in a good way.

It’s safe to say the targeting rules don’t care about the figure blocking itself, because that would be dumb.

I have dumb questions that I am sure have been answered, I just can't find them.

Can LOS be drawn "through" or "under" the T-47? If I had a unit of troopers on one side of a T-47 and wanted to pew a unit of troopers on the other side of the T-47, assuming we were on a flat surface with no obscuring terrain, could my troopers shoot my opponent's?

In the same vein, is the AT-RT completely blocking? If Luke could see Vader through the legs of an AT-RT because the angle allowed it, could he pew / saber throw at Vader?

I know vehicles block LOS in general, I just wasn't sure if they provided a "dome" of cover or if it was more WYSIWYG.

1 hour ago, KalEl814 said:

I have dumb questions that I am sure have been answered, I just can't find them.

Can LOS be drawn "through" or "under" the T-47? If I had a unit of troopers on one side of a T-47 and wanted to pew a unit of troopers on the other side of the T-47, assuming we were on a flat surface with no obscuring terrain, could my troopers shoot my opponent's?

In the same vein, is the AT-RT completely blocking? If Luke could see Vader through the legs of an AT-RT because the angle allowed it, could he pew / saber throw at Vader?

I know vehicles block LOS in general, I just wasn't sure if they provided a "dome" of cover or if it was more WYSIWYG.

If you can see part of the target mini, you have LOS. (RRG pg31) Vehicles can block LOS, but for that to happen the target mini can’t be visible when doing the check.

On 6/30/2018 at 8:28 PM, KalEl814 said:

I have dumb questions that I am sure have been answered, I just can't find them.

Can LOS be drawn "through" or "under" the T-47? If I had a unit of troopers on one side of a T-47 and wanted to pew a unit of troopers on the other side of the T-47, assuming we were on a flat surface with no obscuring terrain, could my troopers shoot my opponent's?

In the same vein, is the AT-RT completely blocking? If Luke could see Vader through the legs of an AT-RT because the angle allowed it, could he pew / saber throw at Vader?

I know vehicles block LOS in general, I just wasn't sure if they provided a "dome" of cover or if it was more WYSIWYG.

Vehicles block what they actually block for LoS (you either see through it with your eyes or you don't have LoS, WYSIWYG). As for cover , only ground vehicles provide light cover if your attack goes across any part of its base, regardless of the position of the physical model above it.

26 minutes ago, Big Easy said:

Vehicles block what they actually block for LoS (you either see through it with your eyes or you don't have LoS, WYSIWYG). As for cover , only ground vehicles (just the AT-RT right now) do provide light cover if your attack goes across any part of its base, regardless of the position of the physical model above it.

By the RAW the AT-ST also obscures the attack (not only the AT-RT), as the rule mentions the ground vehicle's base and not the mini:

"Only ground vehicles can cause a unit to be obscured. If the imaginary line crosses a ground vehicle’s base , the defending unit’s mini is obscured, but if the imaginary line only crosses a trooper or a repulsor vehicle’s base then the defending unit’s mini are not obscured."

17 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

By the RAW the AT-ST also obscures the attack (not only the AT-RT), as the rule mentions the ground vehicle's base and not the mini:

"Only ground vehicles can cause a unit to be obscured. If the imaginary line crosses a ground vehicle’s base , the defending unit’s mini is obscured, but if the imaginary line only crosses a trooper or a repulsor vehicle’s base then the defending unit’s mini are not obscured."

Thanks, forgot about that one. Edited!

And now the rules match the FAQ~ woohoo!

On 6/11/2018 at 11:32 AM, rowdyoctopus said:

I understand how geometry works. I didn't say I didn't agree with your application of it. I don't agree with the rules working that way. Thankfully the rules don't tell us to apply geometric principles to our gameplay (because that could bog things down). We are told to look with our eyes and go with what we see. The rules DO tell us to get down and take a look.

If the intent was figures with a height advantage always gain cover, the rules could just state that outright instead of someone needing to create illustrations to show the geometry at work.

If the only part blocked by the terrain in your diagrams is the red shaded areas of the base, I would wager a majority of players wouldn't even notice the difference between the 3 perspectives and would say no cover.

If it is intended to work as your diagram shows, we probably will need a clarification. If it isn't, we probably still need a clarification.

On 7/27/2018 at 4:08 PM, CaptainRocket said:

Except they had a perfect opportunity to take a hard stance and instead said, "often". They also don't even mention the mini being right on the edge of the terrain, just on the elevated terrain.

Every person I've talked to personally and shown example of this, even after reading and explaining the rules to them, says it seems off that they get cover in that situation.

Personally, I don't care how it actually works in the end. The problem is, that forum post doesn't directly address the issue of geometry trumping the simple visual approach of true line of sight. It is too vague and leaves it open.

1 hour ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Except they had a perfect opportunity to take a hard stance and instead said, "often". They also don't even mention the mini being right on the edge of the terrain, just on the elevated terrain.

Every person I've talked to personally and shown example of this, even after reading and explaining the rules to them, says it seems off that they get cover in that situation.

It’s exactly as hard of a stance as the general terrain rules (my emphasis on parts I consider “hard” stances):

Quote

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. This means
that trooper minis will frequently enjoy the benefits of cover,
while vehicles often will not.

The FAQ post is plenty good enough for me and everyone I’ve talked to, at least.

One possible reason for the “often” descriptor is that there is actually a case where being at a higher level doesn’t give cover: if that higher level is not entirely above the attacking model. Like an AT-ST looking down onto a shorter building. The defender could be described to be “at a higher elevation”, but still below the attacker’s LOS point. No cover would be provided in that case.

1 hour ago, rowdyoctopus said:

The   problem  is,  that forum post doesn't directly address the issue of geometry trumping the simple visual approach of true line of sigh  t  .

I see no distinction between those two things. The visual approach is an application of geometry. It’s classic “theory vs. practice”. We can use geometry and diagrams to theoretically describe situations that are difficult to measure in practice (like getting your eye down on the precise level of the mini).

4 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Except they had a perfect opportunity to take a hard stance and instead said, "often".

Because "often" is the only correct word to use. If the defending unit is at, say, waist height on the attacker, it is at a higher elevation but you can still see all of the mini and the base. It needs to be above the head of the attacking mini to get cover, but it will always get cover if it is (unless the attacker is in base contact with that piece of terrain).

16 hours ago, nashjaee said:

It’s exactly as hard of a stance as the general terrain rules (my emphasis on parts I consider “hard” stances):

The FAQ post is plenty good enough for me and everyone I’ve talked to, at least.

One possible reason for the “often” descriptor is that there is actually a case where being at a higher level doesn’t give cover: if that higher level is not entirely above the attacking model. Like an AT-ST looking down onto a shorter building. The defender could be described to be “at a higher elevation”, but still below the attacker’s LOS point. No cover would be provided in that case.

I see no distinction between those two things. The visual approach is an application of geometry. It’s classic “theory vs. practice”. We can use geometry and diagrams to theoretically describe situations that are difficult to measure in practice (like getting your eye down on the precise level of the mini).

The RRG has to be general. The forum post was responding to a specific question. I submitted a question two days prior to the forum being updated. If that was their response to me, they completely reworded my question to summarize it, but missed the point I was trying to make.

13 hours ago, Turan said:

Because "often" is the only correct word to use. If the defending unit is at, say, waist height on the attacker, it is at a higher elevation but you can still see all of the mini and the base. It needs to be above the head of the attacking mini to get cover, but it will always get cover if it is (unless the attacker is in base contact with that piece of terrain).

Then to my point, it is not directly addressing the point of contention. The contention is in regards to minis standing directly on a naked edge of a cliff/building/etc. This post doesn't address that.

2 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

The forum post was responding to a specific question. I submitted a question two days prior to the forum being updated. If that was their response to me, they completely reworded my question to summarize it, but missed the point I was trying to make.

I see. Yeah, I've had a few questions that they did not specifically respond to. But they did indirectly answer them in other ways through other questions. You are for sure not the only one to ask about this particular interaction, so they probably rephrased/recombined in order to answer multiple questions at once.

I think a mini standing directly on a naked edge would still have a portion of its base blocked that otherwise would not have been blocked compared to lower elevations. CaptainRocket's diagram 25 demonstrates that. It's not much, but it's not 0%.

19 hours ago, nashjaee said:

One possible reason for the “often” descriptor is that there is actually a case where being at a higher level doesn’t give cover: if that higher level is not entirely above the attacking model. Like an AT-ST looking down onto a shorter building. The defender could be described to be “at a higher elevation”, but still below the attacker’s LOS point. No cover would be provided in that case.

There's another scenario that makes 'often' the correct term - if the defending mini is above the attacker's head, and is on terrain that is not flat. If that terrain is angled downward such that it is at the same slope or greater than the angle described by the line from the attacking mini to the base of the defending mini and the line of the table surface, then the defender will be fully visible.

21 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Personally, I don't care how it actually works in the end.

That's certainly not how you're coming off... ^w^;;

17 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

That's certainly not how you're coming off... ^w^;;

My original point way back when was that #23 in your diagrams felt off (my feelings are not the rules, thankfully), and I thought a number of players would assume no cover. In light of that, I felt it could use a direct clarification from the devs. This forum post isn't direct enough to answer that. So I'm still left explaining geometry to players rather than being able to say, "it's right here clear as day."

3 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

So I'm still left explaining geometry to players

It just shouldn't be as complicated as that makes it sound. Aim the laser pointer from the top of the mini up at the defender, ask, "Can you make it touch this side of the base? Then your line of sight is blocked."

23 minutes ago, Turan said:

It just shouldn't be as complicated as that makes it sound. Aim the laser pointer from the top of the mini up at the defender, ask, "Can you make it touch this side of the base? Then your line of sight is blocked."

Didn't know the RRG required laser pointers....

8 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Didn't know the RRG required laser pointers....

Now you're just being intentionally troll-ish. Laser pointers have seen standard use for many years in all other war games that have line of sight rules, and if you're having trouble figuring out your line of sight (or getting someone else to realize it), it's a three dollar solution.

You're the one in this thread having a problem, everyone else is just trying to help you.