9 hours ago, Turan said:

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.

No, but there is a point there.

The rules need to be defined within the game and it’s supplied components. Doubly so for FFG, as that is DESIGN INTENT for them - an expansion contains everything you need at a minimum, barring the flat Surface, to use that expansion alingside a core set and play.

The rules must - and are - written towards that end, so if a rule can only be resolved by using a 3rd party non provided product... it’s a rule that flies in the face of design intent and us thus a “bad rule”.

Encouraging a “bad rule” , for me, comes under the heading of “bad advice”, and should be avoided ?

On 6/9/2018 at 3:39 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...

Since this argument is still going on, I just want to add that I already asked Alex how this works and it's in the email thread I made a while back.

Basically, it's up to the players (just like everything else). If you find yourself in a scenario where a trooper unit is on top of a building and is defending from something below, it comes down to whether or not you agreed being on top of that building provides cover or not. It's a grey area not defined well in the RRG because in most cases buildings fall under area terrain.

For example, if you have a 2 story building that provides heavy cover and you have a unit on top of the building, technically the entire piece is heavy cover and the unit gains heavy cover because it is on it. That's the simplest way to play it, but it creates this very argument. If both players agree the roof provides no cover, even though the unit is in the "heavy cover terrain", you fix the issue. It's a simple fix really, but I feel it's often overlooked.

4 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

No, but there is a point there.

The rules need to be defined within the game and it’s supplied components. Doubly so for FFG, as that is DESIGN INTENT for them - an expansion contains everything you need at a minimum, barring the flat Surface, to use that expansion alingside a core set and play.

The rules must - and are - written towards that end, so if a rule can only be resolved by using a 3rd party non provided product... it’s a rule that flies in the face of design intent and us thus a “bad rule”.

Encouraging a “bad rule” , for me, comes under the heading of “bad advice”, and should be avoided ?

Thank you. My being glib aside, this was my point.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

Since this argument is still going on, I just want to add that I already asked Alex how this works and it's in the email thread I made a while back.

Basically, it's up to the players (just like everything else). If you find yourself in a scenario where a trooper unit is on top of a building and is defending from something below, it comes down to whether or not you agreed being on top of that building provides cover or not. It's a grey area not defined well in the RRG because in most cases buildings fall under area terrain.

For example, if you have a 2 story building that provides heavy cover and you have a unit on top of the building, technically the entire piece is heavy cover and the unit gains heavy cover because it is on it. That's the simplest way to play it, but it creates this very argument. If both players agree the roof provides no cover, even though the unit is in the "heavy cover terrain", you fix the issue. It's a simple fix really, but I feel it's often overlooked.

This perspective is very much appreciated.

5 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

The rules need to be defined within the game and it’s supplied components. Doubly so for FFG, as that is DESIGN INTENT for them - an expansion contains everything you need at a minimum, barring the flat Surface, to use that expansion alingside a core set and play.

The rules must - and are - written towards that end, so if a rule can only be resolved by using a 3rd party non provided product... it’s a rule that flies in the face of design intent and us thus a “bad rule”.

If you're going to be strictly pedantic about it, this entire situation cannot occur with the components that come in the box. It only happens with terrain that is very much more than just a flat surface.

Furthermore, in all fairness the procedure described by @Turan can be followed with the range ruler instead of the laser pointer. The laser pointer just makes it easier.

7 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Since this argument is still going on, I just want to add that I already asked Alex how this works and it's in the email thread I made a while back.

[...]

For example, if you have a 2 story building that provides heavy cover and you have a unit on top of the building, technically the entire piece is heavy cover and the unit gains heavy cover because it is on it. That's the simplest way to play it , but it creates this very argument. If both players agree the roof provides no cover, even though the unit is in the "heavy cover terrain", you fix the issue. It's a simple fix really, but I feel it's often overlooked.

So if I understand this correctly, by default the behavior is as specified in this thread and supported by the official rulings thread?

However if both players agree to change the rules and specify different different terrain behavior, (as provided by the following clause, "This section includes rules for common terrain types, but players are free to expand or modify these rules as needed.") then the top of a building can be declared to provide no cover - in the same fashion that players could make up any new terrain rule for the top of a building. For example, "troops gain sharpshooter 1" or "troops suffer one wound at the end of each round", or "the player with more units on the top of this building has to buy the other player a beer"?

'Cause if so, then you'll have no argument from me. The rules say units get cover from standing on stuff, but if you and your opponent agree, then you can change the rules to say anything you want them to - go have fun in whatever way you want!

P.S. Even though The email response thread has been superseded by the official rulings thread and rules updates, I wouldn't mind a link to this particular exchange.

P.P.S. If you do agree with your opponent that building tops are not cover in order to avoid the 'problem', then you will create the, "I put my unit well away from the edge and you can only see the tip of one finger, but it sill gets no cover" problem.

Not sure if it's been resolved here, or elsewhere, but I see folks using an OVERHEAD line for the Cover rule that states: "the player
then 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.".

Why aren't folks using a direct line, from middle of base to middle of base, in 3d space? I don't see where they specify limiting the line to a 2d plane parallel to the board. Also, drawing the line in 3d space makes resolving the rule easier.

Maybe I missed somewhere where they day use a 2d plane?

4 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Not sure if it's been resolved here, or elsewhere, but I see folks using an OVERHEAD line for the Cover rule that states: "the player
then 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.".

Why aren't folks using a direct line, from middle of base to middle of base, in 3d space? I don't see where they specify limiting the line to a 2d plane parallel to the board. Also, drawing the line in 3d space makes resolving the rule easier.

Maybe I missed somewhere where they day use a 2d plane?

Well, at Adepticon (and since confirmed by Alex Davy) it was ruled that ranges are to be measured horizontal to the board, so that might have part of it, so 3D measurements do not seem to be part of the game. The Range rules do say to measure by touching the base of a miniature you are measuring from and point it towards the miniature you are measuring towards, which many of us thought meant a direct line. Apparently, that was not the intent, but discussions as to the oddity of that ruling are best had elsewhere, this is about cover and LoS.

The purpose of the line also seems to be to ensure that the potential obstruction is somewhere along the plane of center to center, which is easiest to check from above. If you only measure base to base, then you could not benefit from cover by standing behind say the engine of a U-wing model being used as terrain (if both models are at the same height). Now, maybe it is supposed to be a line directly from one mini to the other, it would be nice to have an example or diagram, using cover blocking the midriff of the miniature.

Quick ASCII drawing of what I mean:

o <- Head of miniature

******* <- engine

---------- <-base of miniature

45 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Not sure if it's been resolved here, or elsewhere, but I see folks using an OVERHEAD line for the Cover rule that states: "the player
then 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.".

Why aren't folks using a direct line, from middle of base to middle of base, in 3d space? I don't see where they specify limiting the line to a 2d plane parallel to the board. Also, drawing the line in 3d space makes resolving the rule easier.

Maybe I missed somewhere where they day use a 2d plane?

It's because the example diagrams given by FFG trace the line horizontally only from an overhead view and the recorded statements that all range is measured in 2D top down.

After playing it for a while and using both styles I personally found it easier to treat it as a 2D projection. There's even laser pointers that make this very easy to paint a line across the ground to check!

I assumed it was 3D at first (you can see it in my earlier diagrams), I have no skin in the game either way I'm just recording what the rules are so we can all play with a clear common understanding.

Thanks.

CaptainRocket, great work on that diagram. It should be in the RRG.

One request, any chance you can format it so that it can more easily be printed on standard paper types, possibly as a pdf file so every platform can read it? I had to move examples around in a new omage file to get it print nicely. Great printed tool for quick reference!!

22 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Thanks.

CaptainRocket, great work on that diagram. It should be in the RRG.

One request, any chance you can format it so that it can more easily be printed on standard paper types, possibly as a pdf file so every platform can read it? I had to move examples around in a new omage file to get it print nicely. Great printed tool for quick reference!!

Aw thankyou! I really appreciate the kudos!

I tried to size it so it would print at 8.5 width and paginate... but a PDF is a good idea. Not sure where to upload it though....

Google Drive or Dropbox.

I love this chart and have used it to explain cover several times.

The only problem I see is the 50% line at the top for the Airspeeder includes the base and flying stand and as I understand it minis with flying stand do not include base or stand for the purposes of LOF so should probably not include them for percentage of cover.

19 hours ago, Rogue Kiwi said:

The only problem I see is the 50% line at the top for the Airspeeder includes the base and flying stand and as I understand it minis with flying stand do not include base or stand for the purposes of LOF so should probably not include them for percentage of cover.

That is...

A fascinating point that I have never seen come up~

I think tho, that the T-47 (or the bikes frankly) doesn't need to be made more vulnerable !

Also that approach would mess with the nice progression plot they have WRT to terrain height and mini height cover...

I figure the post rationalization goes like... Speeder units are constantly moving up and down so it is more likely that you can see them at all, but less likely that you can get a clean shot at them?

19 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

I think tho, that the T-47 (or the bikes frankly) doesn't need to be made more vulnerable !

Sure, but there's no point in you putting the airspeeder behind a building and saying it would get heavy cover from it if you'd have to be at a specific angle for the airspeeder to be obstructed by the building in the first place.

On the flip side, the entire 50% thing is just a suggested rule of thumb, so from that perspective it doesn't really matter either.

2 hours ago, Turan said:

Sure, but there's no point in you putting the airspeeder behind a building and saying it would get heavy cover from it if you'd have to be at a specific angle for the airspeeder to be obstructed by the building in the first place.

I don't follow, what do you mean?

3 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

I don't follow, what do you mean?

The miniature itself has to be obscured by the building, not just the base as any model attached to the base by a clear peg does not count as obscured if only the base is obscured. Which has interesting implications for Boba Fett honestly, mostly for him on top of buildings....

45 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The miniature itself has to be obscured by the building, not just the base as any model attached to the base by a clear peg does not count as obscured if only the base is obscured. Which has interesting implications for Boba Fett honestly, mostly for him on top of buildings....

Yes, diagram 26 illustrates that.

I don't understand what @Turan means by:

Quote

Sure, but there's no point in you putting the airspeeder behind a building and saying it would get heavy cover from it if you'd have to be at a specific angle for the airspeeder to be obstructed by the building in the first place.

Obstruction is always dependent on angle... *head tilt in confusion*

@CaptainRocket First, let me add my voice to the chorus of people singing your praises. This is not only excellent technical work, it's also super helpful. Plus, it looks good. (And it's always nice to look good :-) So, thank you!

If you'll indulge one clarification question, I'm a little confused on No. 24. What do you mean by "Terrain Invalid"? I suspect that it's terrain that was previously agreed to not provide cover to that particular type of unit and therefore does not provide cover in that example, but just wanted to make sure. But regardless, it's my understanding from a few other threads on this topic that if a mini is elevated to the point where it is above another mini, it automatically has at least light cover. Am I getting that wrong?

Lastly, also wanted to be among those respectfully requesting a PDF version of the chart, if your time permits. Or even just splitting the posted version into two separate images. The existing image seems to be about 8 inches wide by about 14+ inches tall. I've tried scaling that down onto a single page, but sadly it makes it mostly unreadable.

Thanks again for your fine work! It's much appreciated.

16 minutes ago, Gengis Jon said:

it's my understanding from a few other threads on this topic that if a mini is elevated to the point where it is above another mini, it automatically has at least light cover. Am I getting that wrong?

Yes. A piece of terrain can only grant the degree of cover agreed to before the game starts. If you and your opponent agreed that small hill does not grant cover to the AT-ST, then it does not grant cover to the AT-ST. Doesn't matter if a portion of the AT-ST is obstructed because it's standing behind the hill or because it's elevated from the attacker, if you said it gets no cover, it gets no cover.

What your understanding should be is that if a mini is elevated above another mini, it will automatically have some line of sight blocked. The amount of cover is determined normally.

The only exception to that is if your attacking unit leader does not have line of sight at all to the AT-ST, then it doesn't matter what you said that terrain gives, it's heavy cover (so long as there are other minis in the unit that do have line of sight).

4 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

Yes, diagram 26 illustrates that.

I don't understand what @Turan means by:

Obstruction is always dependent on angle... *head tilt in confusion*

Fair point. I'm not entirely sure either. For Instance, I've had troops that normally would be in heavy cover blasted in the open by the AT-ST because it was taller than the terrain, so I'm not sure why it was novel. Somehow I thought you were confused, which doesn't really make sense given the clarity of your diagrams. :-P.

17 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

Quote

Sure, but there's no point in you putting the airspeeder behind a building and saying it would get heavy cover from it if you'd have to be at a specific angle for the airspeeder to be obstructed by the building in the first place.

Obstruction is always dependent on angle... *head tilt in confusion*

I don't see how my words are unclear, but I will attempt to clarify.

You have a building or hill which is 50% as tall as your airspeeder, but nowhere near actually providing obstruction to the model (as per the diagram originally asked about).

In that case, you could spend time including the airspeeder as one of the models you come to an agreed decision about vis-a-vis what degree of cover that piece of terrain might grant it.

Or you could say, well, the only time that piece of terrain would actually obstruct for the airspeeder is a niche situation if, say, a trooper is right against the edge and the airspeeder is on top of the building, because at most possible angles the terrain in question will not block line of sight to the required part of the model.

Either way you're remembering a state pertaining to that terrain and the airspeeder (provides Blah cover, where Blah is light/heavy/none), either way your game will usually not result in that terrain blocking line of sight to the airspeeder's model, so one way reduces the amount of time spent before you actually start playing the darned game.

Maybe you were legitimately confused, but reading that and responding with "obstruction is always dependent on angle" seems like someone being unhappy that they got no hits when rolling twenty red dice and you say, "rolling hits is always random" - they're clearly describing a situation that has a very low possibility of happening.

On 9/5/2018 at 9:34 AM, Turan said:

You have a building or hill which is 50% as tall as your airspeeder, but nowhere near actually providing obstruction to the model (as per the diagram originally asked about).

In that case, you could spend time including the airspeeder as one of the models you come to an agreed decision about vis-a-vis what degree of cover that piece of terrain might grant it.

Or you could say, well, the only time that piece of terrain would actually obstruct for the airspeeder is a niche situation if, say, a trooper is right against the edge and the airspeeder is on top of the building, because at most possible angles the terrain in question will not block line of sight to the required part of the model.

Either way you're remembering a state pertaining to that terrain and the airspeeder (provides Blah cover, where Blah is light/heavy/none), either way your game will usually not result in that terrain blocking line of sight to the airspeeder's model, so one way reduces the amount of time spent before you actually start playing the darned game.

I think I see what you mean now - because the airspeeder is squat but high up, it is less likely to be obstructed by 50% high terrain and much more likely to be obstructed by 75% (of total model) terrain.

I think that's fair, and actually in practice I bet it would make a difference infrequently, maybe 1 in 6 LOS checks. Depending on the terrain of course it could be more common (I've played urban boards where troops hug the walls of building precisely to make it harder for AT-STs and T-47s to see them), but either way so long as consistent will be thematic (minit is placed at min flight height for an airspeeder vs dropping below fixed model position while flying).

However, I'm not sure I agree that evaluating halfway up the speeder model is meaningfully any faster than halfway up the entire miniature. In all the games I've played the process of agreeing on cover is pretty quick, going by unit type and pointing to terrain on the table we agree gives cover, and only occasionally putting the unit up against it to confirm. In practice I think you might skip a piece or two at best.

I guess we should chalk it up to yet another thing you'd best clarify with your opponent ahead of time.

FWIW I'm sorry you thought my comment was passive aggressive, but it was not directed at you. You had ignored my original request for clarification. I was responding to Caimhuel who was attempting to answer my request, but didn't understand your point. I was clarifying for him why I had asked for clarification from you .

Also given that I prefer to play to terrain heavy boards with lots of verticality I must confess I personally frequently experience angle being a critical element in determining obstruction and cover. Certainly far more common than rolling no hits on 20 red dice.

No problem.

Now with printable PDF by popular demand!

https://www.scribd.com/document/388175558/Legion-LOS-v2-1

Sorry but in pic #25 the ATST would NOT get cover. It would have to be behind the terrain to even be considered not on top.

Everything else looks great!