I just played my first game and while most rules are simple and intuitive, I found one thing baffling: my opponent used AT-RT's ability to climb on top of a small building. While the elevated position gave it an excellent view of the entire battlefield, it was also very exposed there... or so I thought. The building was small, but it was tall enough to make sure the troopers below couldn't see the AT-RT's base (though they could see pretty much the entire model otherwise). My opponent's rationale was that because LoS to the base is obscured and the intervening object is a part of the building (it's roof) then the AT-RT gains cover from the building. Also, while the building seemed like a complete shot blocker if you stood behind it, he decided to treat it as a heavy cover. As a result, an AT-RT standing perfectly visible on top of a building in the middle of the battlefield would gain heavy cover from all shots coming in it's direction. Is it really the letter of the rules or was he misinterpreting something?

If part of the base is obscured, he gains cover, that is one of the positive things of getting the high ground, you'll gain cover against practically every attack from a unit that is below. As for what kind of cover that building gives (light or heavy), it depends on what you agree before the match on which type of cover each piece of terrain gives

8 hours ago, Lightrock said:

Also, while the building seemed like a complete shot blocker if you stood behind it, he decided to treat it as a heavy cover.

Make sure you're taking responsibility for all steps of the game (I don't know if you're new and just being taught). Part of the game is, before setup, to establish what kind of cover each piece of terrain gives. So he can't "decide" to treat terrain as something, it has to be a mutual agreement.

That said, yes, most large buildings would be considered to grant heavy cover. If you're standing behind something such that your opponent can't see the mini at all, then you can't attack something you don't have line of sight to (so, "shot blocker?"). But if you can see any part of the unit, you can attack it and it may get the kind of cover you decided for that terrain piece (so, in this case, heavy).

34 minutes ago, MyronMagic said:

RRG Page 8. "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."

I would say that ATRT does not have cover if you could see more then 50% of it.

@Turan already alluded to this, but it's an important point to reiterate: determining the type of cover provided by terrain to each unit is done before the game begins. During the game, it doesn't matter how much of a given mini you can see. If any portion is blocked by a piece of terrain that you decided provides cover to that unit, it is a candidate for receiving cover.

The 50% guideline is to aid you in determining who will receive cover from each terrain piece. Since vehicles are taller than troopers, it logically follows that vehicles will typically get cover from fewer pieces of terrain than troopers will. That's all that your quoted passage is saying.

In short, an AT-RT standing on top of a building that's taller than 50% of the model will receive cover from all attackers that are below its elevation, since geometry guarantees that some portion will be blocked by the building.

On 7/22/2018 at 11:35 AM, Lightrock said:

Is it really the letter of the rules or was he misinterpreting something?

Shameless plug...

30 minutes ago, CaptainRocket said:

Shameless plug...

I was actually looking for this post, thank-you. It is very well done and a great resource. I would be interested in hearing what the Devs had to say about your #25. I will tell my paint balling friend to try this and see how it goes. =P

1 hour ago, MyronMagic said:

I would say that ATRT does not have cover if you could see more then 50% of it.

This is an oft-misquoted passage...you do not use this during the game, estimating whether you see 50% of a model or not. You follow the steps in establishing cover and you either have line of sight to all parts of the model (not blocked by itself) or you don't.

1 hour ago, MyronMagic said:

I was actually looking for this post, thank-you. It is very well done and a great resource.

Thankyou!

Quote

I would be interested in hearing what the Devs had to say about your #25. I will tell my paint balling friend to try this and see how it goes. =P

Yeah 24 & 25 (26 technically too I forgot to update the number) illustrate an extreme case of how the rules have inconsistent results.

On the flip side, they are simple, and such situations are rare, and easy to predict and understand so there's that!

22 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

Shameless plug...

Thanks for trying to help but if anything this is even more confusing and unintuitive than I thought. I don't have the foggiest idea why some of the vehicles on top of buildings are in cover or not in cover in your examples. Any real world / common sense rules don't seem to apply at all, so you pretty much have to memorize rules for a couple of dozen situations. If these are the "simple" cover rules, I'd hate to see complex ones. Not to mention some of those cases are plain ridiculous.

5 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

Thanks for trying to help but if anything this is even more confusing and unintuitive than I thought. I don't have the foggiest idea why some of the vehicles on top of buildings are in cover or not in cover in your examples. Any real world / common sense rules don't seem to apply at all, so you pretty much have to memorize rules for a couple of dozen situations. If these are the "simple" cover rules, I'd hate to see complex ones. Not to mention some of those cases are plain ridiculous.

Well, to be honest it really is a simple system. However, even the simplest systems can appear complex and overwhelming when you extrapolate and present every conceivable scenario . What makes this a simple system is that all these scenarios are handled by 3 decision points:

1. Is any portion of the defender (even the tiniest smidge of the base) blocked from LOS?
2. Does the center-to-center line cross a piece of terrain?
3. Does the terrain that was crossed provide cover to that unit (as determined by the pre-game discussion)?

If the answer to all three of those statements is "yes", then you grant cover. If any of them is "no", then no cover. The sheer volume of possible scenarios can be overwhelming, but it all comes back to that 3-item list.

If any of CaptainRocket's diagrams are still unclear, perhaps we can help explain. Just let us know which ones in particular.

11 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

Well, to be honest it really is a simple system. However, even the simplest systems can appear complex and overwhelming when you extrapolate and present every conceivable scenario . What makes this a simple system is that all these scenarios are handled by 3 decision points:

1. Is any portion of the defender (even the tiniest smidge of the base) blocked from LOS?
2. Does the center-to-center line cross a piece of terrain?
3. Does the terrain that was crossed provide cover to that unit (as determined by the pre-game discussion)?

If the answer to all three of those statements is "yes", then you grant cover. If any of them is "no", then no cover. The sheer volume of possible scenarios can be overwhelming, but it all comes back to that 3-item list.

If any of CaptainRocket's diagrams are still unclear, perhaps we can help explain. Just let us know which ones in particular.

Yeah, the way I understand it, in order to check whether something provides cover or not we're supposed to compare the height of the obstacle to the height of the model and we're supposed to do so before the game begins. Which sounds simple and intuitive enough until you come across a problem of vehicles standing on top of buildings. If you put a vehicle BEHIND the building, it's reasonable enough to assume that the building will provide cover. But if you put the model on top of the building, by the very definition the building does nothing or next to nothing to obscure the model. If I get this right, we're supposed to decide what cover the building provides before the game begins by placing a model NEXT to it, but then assume it will provide that cover even if the model is not next to the building but on top of it - despite the fact that if you initially placed the vehicle on top, you'd easily conclude that the building provides no cover at all. Who on earth thought that was a reasonable idea? Or that such a rule would be "simple" and easy to understand?

On another note: what happens if the model is entirely behind a building that is tall enough to block LOS completely but a small part of it's base is visible around the corner? Can the vehicle shoot despite center-to-center being completely blocked? Can it be shot at? If it can shoot or be shot at, are the shots subject to cover rules or not? In particular, can you place a vehicle facing a wall of a building with only a part of the base sticking outside and claim you can shoot at something on the other side of building with an unobstructed shot (since you're touching the building)?

4 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

Yeah, the way I understand it, in order to check whether something provides cover or not we're supposed to compare the height of the obstacle to the height of the model and we're supposed to do so before the game begins. Which sounds simple and intuitive enough until you come across a problem of vehicles standing on top of buildings. If you put a vehicle BEHIND the building, it's reasonable enough to assume that the building will provide cover. But if you put the model on top of the building, by the very definition the building does nothing or next to nothing to obscure the model. If I get this right, we're supposed to decide what cover the building provides before the game begins by placing a model NEXT to it, but then assume it will provide that cover even if the model is not next to the building but on top of it - despite the fact that if you initially placed the vehicle on top, you'd easily conclude that the building provides no cover at all. Who on earth thought that was a reasonable idea? Or that such a rule would be "simple" and easy to understand?

Yeah, I get it can be immersion-breaking for some to provide cover when nearly the whole model is visible. I'm sure some people out there are house ruling this. On the flip side, I think it brings some tactical benefits to exploring the full 3-dimensionality of the board. People often complain that climbing/clambering are a waste of actions, etc. But if you treat the cover rules this way, then there can be a good reason to move upward.

7 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

On another note: what happens if the model is entirely behind a building that is tall enough to block LOS completely but a small part of it's base is visible around the corner? Can the vehicle shoot despite center-to-center being completely blocked? Can it be shot at? If it can shoot or be shot at, are the shots subject to cover rules or not? In particular, can you place a vehicle facing a wall of a building with only a part of the base sticking outside and claim you can shoot at something on the other side of building with an unobstructed shot (since you're touching the building)?

Bear in mind that you check LOS from the top-center of the attacking model. So sticking your toe around a corner does not give you LOS to shoot stuff, even if you are touching the terrain. On the other hand, sticking your toe out does expose you to being shot, and you will get cover because item 2 in my list above would be true.

19 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

Yeah, I get it can be immersion-breaking for some to provide cover when nearly the whole model is visible. I'm sure some people out there are house ruling this. On the flip side, I think it brings some tactical benefits to exploring the full 3-dimensionality of the board. People often complain that climbing/clambering are a waste of actions, etc. But if you treat the cover rules this way, then there can be a good reason to move upward.

Bear in mind that you check LOS from the top-center of the attacking model. So sticking your toe around a corner does not give you LOS to shoot stuff, even if you are touching the terrain. On the other hand, sticking your toe out does expose you to being shot, and you will get cover because item 2 in my list above would be true.

It definitely IS immersion-breaking. Nothing quite takes you out of the raging battle and back into the reality of moving pieces of plastic around the table than something so obviously absurd. I sure hope it's going to get changed sooner rather than later. For now it certainly left a bad taste in my mouth after what was otherwise an excellent experience. Somehow my enthusiasm for coming back to the game is diminished by fear that the more I play the more I'm gonna find gamey stuff like this, where the spirit and the immersion is sacrificed on the altar of having to stick to poorly written rules. I've seen games spoiled by stuff like this being abused and I'd hate to see the same to happen to Legion. ?

29 minutes ago, Lightrock said:

Yeah, the way I understand it, in order to check whether something provides cover or not we're supposed to compare the height of the obstacle to the height of the model and we're supposed to do so before the game begins. Which sounds simple and intuitive enough until you come across a problem of vehicles standing on top of buildings. If you put a vehicle BEHIND the building, it's reasonable enough to assume that the building will provide cover. But if you put the model on top of the building, by the very definition the building does nothing or next to nothing to obscure the model. If I get this right, we're supposed to decide what cover the building provides before the game begins by placing a model NEXT to it, but then assume it will provide that cover even if the model is not next to the building but on top of it - despite the fact that if you initially placed the vehicle on top, you'd easily conclude that the building provides no cover at all. Who on earth thought that was a reasonable idea? Or that such a rule would be "simple" and easy to understand?

Even if maybe doesn't make much sense, the rules have to be strict to avoid discussions. With the rules as they are there's no discussion, if any part of the mini (including the base) is obscured, then that unit gains the cover granted by that object. If you try to rule it that it gains cover only if at least half of the mini is obscured, then in some cases I could for example say that half of the mini os obscured and you could argue otherwise and the only way to resolve it would be to measure with a ruler to see how many mm/inches of the mini are obscured and how many not.
Also as @nashjaee said, if the rules weren't this way, then there will be less benefit in clambering, when it should be really beneficial for a unit to have the high ground (if not ask Obi-Wan ? )

6 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

Even if maybe doesn't make much sense, the rules have to be strict to avoid discussions. With the rules as they are there's no discussion, if any part of the mini (including the base) is obscured, then that unit gains the cover granted by that object. If you try to rule it that it gains cover only if at least half of the mini is obscured, then in some cases I could for example say that half of the mini os obscured and you could argue otherwise and the only way to resolve it would be to measure with a ruler to see how many mm/inches of the mini are obscured and how many not.
Also as @nashjaee said, if the rules weren't this way, then there will be less benefit in clambering, when it should be really beneficial for a unit to have the high ground (if not ask Obi-Wan ? )

Yeah, except the rules should never be ludicrous. I know it's a game but the rules of the game should - to some extent at least - simulate reality. If rules are unrealistic to that extent, they're simply bad rules. I don't see any reason why rules shouldn't distinguish between being behind an obstacle and on top of it. Also, I wouldn't mind if there was some benefit to being above the target - for example automatically granting sharpshooter 1 for each terrain height above the target. Granting cover though? That seems like a silly oversight rather than an actual design decision.

4 hours ago, Lightrock said:

Thanks for trying to help but if anything this is even more confusing and unintuitive than I thought. I don't have the foggiest idea why some of the vehicles on top of buildings are in cover or not in cover in your examples. Any real world / common sense rules don't seem to apply at all, so you pretty much have to memorize rules for a couple of dozen situations.

I don't disagree at all with your points. I started my diagrams because initially I felt the same way as you did.

However in defense of the current system I offer the following three considerations which don't make your points incorrect, but may make you feel better:

• The rules to memorize are simple and straightforward
• Executing the rules requires little judgement, has minimal fudge or ambiguity, and is quick to do
• The vast majority of the time the result of the rules is intuitive
• Elevation provides an organic advantage (oversight or not, it is a benefit to the game)

Additionally, consider that for troopers we are comfortable with our minis being a stand in of a real person who can take many different postures as needed - the walkers for whom this is a problem are also the type of unit that could and would crouch down if it was receiving fire from a unit underneath it.

2 hours ago, Lightrock said:

I don't see any reason why rules shouldn't distinguish between being behind an obstacle and on top of it.

That said I don't disagree with this either. If they do revise the rules, I hope they maintain benefits to elevation.