.

.

.

12 hours ago, cookluke5150 said:

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.

Only if both players had explicitly agreed for that to be the case before the game.

The way the rules are currently written, a piece of terrain is only eligible to provide cover if it has been declared to be so at the start of the game, and that declaration applies to the entire terrain piece unless otherwise agreed upon by the players.

Otherwise, at roughly 4.5" that piece of terrain was previously declared to be more than 50% ATST height, and thus is eligible to provide cover to AT-ST units on it or behind it, just like the smaller terrain in #23 will provide cover to troops on or behind.

P.S. Starting a conversation with "Sorry you're wrong..." can feel pretty condescending to others. When it turns out you were wrong after all... well it's not a good look. You may have more luck "making friends and influencing people" by soft balling a questions - like, "I don't understand why you think this..."

P.P.S sorry about the multi posting... forum had a weird hiccup/glitch there!

If it's any consolation, something that provides cover to the AT-ST is something that, by definition, it cannot get on top of since vehicles cannot climb (both rules are based on the 50% of height threshold). So long as you don't put smaller terrain up against it that can be used as a stepping stone, the situation shouldn't come up at all.

Well, if it's strictly a block or building as in the sample diagrams, but you can certainly have hills that have quite a high peak but with a shallow enough grade for the AT-ST to walk up it.

On 9/12/2018 at 10:23 PM, cookluke5150 said:

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.

That's not how terrain works as previously established and mentioned. So long as even part of the base of a model not attached by a clear peg is obscured, the unit can get cover.

Edit: Just realized there are WAY more pages than I thought here >_<

Sorry, I’m sure this has been asked and answered elsewhere (not to mention I feel like the answer is obvious) but what is the current consensus on LOS between units that are directly above/under each other, in rooftop/ground level situation. Can they shoot at each other or not?

If you can see any enemy mini, you can shoot them.

In the case you described, usually a unit leader from a higher position sees much more of the enemy units, including bases, so it helps to avoid some cover. Usually, unit leaders from a lower position don't see their enemies base, so the unit in high position gets cover.

12 hours ago, Gengis Jon said:

LOS between units that are directly above  /under each other

I'm not sure how specific you're being with the language in your question. If you just mean that one unit is standing on top of a piece of terrain and the other is not, @YuriPanzer is correct.

However, if you said what you meant, a unit that is directly on top of the other will have a solid floor in between them and that obviously prevents an attack if you can't draw line of sight.

10 minutes ago, Turan said:

I'm not sure how specific you're being with the language in your question. If you just mean that one unit is standing on top of a piece of terrain and the other is not, @YuriPanzer is correct.

However, if you said what you meant, a unit that is directly on top of the other will have a solid floor in between them and that obviously prevents an attack if you can't draw line of sight.

I meant one unit on a roof edge, the other unit outside the building but (basically, but not literally) directly below.

Just now, Gengis Jon said:

I meant one unit on a roof edge, the other unit outside the building

Then the previous post answered your question.

Still cannot get over the disconnect between the name and Yuri Panzer's Avatar... >.<;;

On 10/1/2018 at 7:40 AM, CaptainRocket said:

Still cannot get over the disconnect between the name and Yuri Panzer's Avatar... >.<;;

LOL

Because I pick this name long ago. And AFAIK I can't upload any pic I want.

Also can't find a pic of Boba ?

Captain Rocket - I love your chart and appreciate how much effort you've put it to it. Is there any chance you could upload the PDF somewhere which doesn't require a credit card and that you remember to cancel before they start charging you $9/month?

so question about the re pulsar vehicles that i didn't see anything posted about. per the ffg rules you don't count the clear peg or the base for the model for determining both LOS and cover. so is the 50% on the clear peg for it and not the model itself? i mean in rare cases the t47 can get cover if LOS isn't to all the model itself and the building is over 50% of the model and not the clear peg and base as those aren't counted for the LOS/cover rules section.
also a friend of mine sent in a question about the cover rule for at-st and the way alex davy stated it. pretty much any vehicle gets cover from area terrain regardless of height. he was having trouble posting it so posting it here for him

@azeronbloodmoone You should remove the email addresses from that post, especially since these posts are indexed by search engines. Bots will trawl forums looking for email addresses posted in the clear to add to spam/malicious email lists.

48 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@azeronbloodmoone You should remove the email addresses from that post, especially since these posts are indexed by search engines. Bots will trawl forums looking for email addresses posted in the clear to add to spam/malicious email lists.

sorry just did it didn't realize i did it

3 minutes ago, azeronbloodmoone said:

sorry just did it didn't realize i did it

No worries, was just a spot of advice. Figured you had likely missed it in the copy/paste :).

On 2/20/2019 at 7:48 PM, scooper4711 said:

Captain Rocket - I love your chart and appreciate how much effort you've put it to it. Is there any chance you could upload the PDF somewhere which doesn't require a credit card and that you remember to cancel before they start charging you $9/month?

I'm confused. Does Scribd ask you for your credit card?

I think I was able to immediately cancel my account if it did...

It's hard to find places that will host PDFs... feel free to upload it somewhere else if you like and I will link to!

On 2/20/2019 at 9:36 PM, azeronbloodmoone said:

so question about the re pulsar vehicles that i didn't see anything posted about. per the ffg rules you don't count the clear peg or the base for the model for determining both LOS and cover. so is the 50% on the clear peg for it and not the model itself? i mean in rare cases the t47 can get cover if LOS isn't to all the model itself and the building is over 50% of the model and not the clear peg and base as those aren't counted for the LOS/cover rules section.
also a friend of mine sent in a question about the cover rule for at-st and the way alex davy stated it. pretty much any vehicle gets cover from area terrain regardless of height. he was having trouble posting it so posting it here for him

Feb 5 at 11:09 AM

Hi James,

Determining whether a mini is obscured is really a two-step process. First, at the beginning of the game, players must agree upon what pieces of terrain provide cover for what units. The general rule is that if terrain covers 50% or more of a mini when that mini is placed directly behind it, that mini will get cover from that terrain. This is where the AT-ST suffers; there are not many terrain pieces which cover 50% or more of an AT-ST.

The second part of determining whether a mini is obscured comes during actual gameplay. During this stage, if line of sight to ANY part of a mini is blocked by a piece of terrain, it counts as obscured. In many cases, LOS to part of the AT-ST will be blocked, but it’s usually blocked by terrain that can’t protect the AT-ST because it was determined that it does not provide cover to the AT-ST back in step one.

Essentially, the AT-ST is so large it will rarely have cover, unless that cover is “area” terrain like woods, or a particularly tall building.

Cheers,

Alex Davy

Game Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

So I agree there is an ambiguity regarding the 50% guidance and the clear peg with notches bases. During pre-game you either:

• A) Look at total height of model and say something 1/2 or greater than that will grant cover, even if (like the T-47) that height is partway up the clear peg.
• B) Look at just the model, and find things that are taller than 1/2 of the model itself.

I lean towards interpretation A because the vehicles could be bobbing up and down slightly...

Regardless of which you choose, the rules during determine cover steps of the attack procedure are clear - when checking to see if the attack leader can see the entire target model, ignore the clear peg and notched base. If it *can't*, then you check the bases to base and test the intersected terrain against either A or B's pre-agreeement.

As for Alex Davey's email, I don't think he's intending to imply that *all* area terrain gives cover to vehicles, simple giving common examples of terrain tall enough to block LOS to the AT-ST.

12 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

As for Alex Davey's email, I don't think he's intending to imply that *all* area terrain gives cover to vehicles, simple giving common examples of terrain tall enough to block LOS to the AT-ST.

I think he actually might be implying that. Area terrain works differently than other terrain, in that it doesn't require LOS to actually be blocked. From page 8 under the Area Terrain heading:

Any attacks made that fire through or into this
zone, even if line of sight is not physically blocked by a feature of
this terrain, are subject to the effects of the area terrain.

Although I suppose you could agree that certain pieces of area terrain don't provide cover to certain types of units.

29 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

I think he actually might be implying that. Area terrain works differently than other terrain, in that it doesn't require LOS to actually be blocked. From page 8 under the Area Terrain heading:

Any attacks made that fire through or into this
zone, even if line of sight is not physically blocked by a feature of
this terrain, are subject to the effects of the area terrain.

Although I suppose you could agree that certain pieces of area terrain don't provide cover to certain types of units.

You left out the portion of area terrain that determines how high the area is:

Quote

Area terrain is unique in that it represents a zone of terrain, rather than individual objects or pieces of terrain. When determining the size of area terrain, imagine a zone beginning at the bottom edges of the terrain and extending straight upward to a point parallel with the highest physical feature of the terrain. This creates a three dimensional, often cylindrical, zone that is effected by the area terrain. Any attacks made that fire through or into this zone, even if line of sight is not physically blocked by a feature of this terrain, are subject to the effects of the area terrain.

So if the area terrain is just flat, it won't provide cover to ANYTHING. Only if you have trees, rocks/broken buildings as part of the terrain piece is it possible for the area terrain to provide cover.

39 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

I think he actually might be implying that. Area terrain works differently than other terrain, in that it doesn't require LOS to actually be blocked. From page 8 under the

[...]

Although I suppose you could agree that certain pieces of area terrain don't provide cover to certain types of units.

8 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

You left out the portion of area terrain that determines how high the area is:

So if the area terrain is just flat, it won't provide cover to ANYTHING. Only if you have trees, rocks/broken buildings as part of the terrain piece is it possible for the area terrain to provide cover.

Yes, I agree. Area terrain does not require literal visual obstruction. But not all area terrain provides cover to the AT-ST which is what Azeron seemed to be understanding from Alex Davey's email based on their statement:

On 2/20/2019 at 9:36 PM, azeronbloodmoone said:

also a friend of mine sent in a question about the cover rule for at-st and the way alex davy stated it. pretty much any vehicle gets cover from area terrain regardless of height.

This is *not* the case.

We often have area terrain that only provides cover to troopers, or even short tree area terrain that covers support and heavies but *not* the AT-ST.