9 hours ago, nashjaee said:

The 50% rule has always been a pre-game guideline on how to classify terrain. You do not use it during the game to determine cover. Fortunately, they made that explicit in the latest RRG because it frequently caused some confusion. Page 26:

“Checking whether a piece of terrain is blocking half or
more, or less than half, of a mini is only used during
setup to determine whether or not that piece of terrain
will provide cover during the game.”

Thanks nashjaee, I’ve been doing it wrong. I think I get it now, and it’s simpler than I thought.

When checking for cover, you look at everything from top down (as if drawn on paper) and if the object is in between the attacker and defender, the defender gets cover equal to whatever the cover value is for the intervening object. When they say, “measure from the attacking unit leader’s base” to the “base of the defender”, the 3rd demension is not even considered (I think this is what screws people up).

So the example of Luke’s head being obscured and lower body visible from underneath doesn’t matter cause in 2d Luke is obscured and so he gets cover equal to whatever the x-wing’s value is.

14 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

When checking for cover, you look at everything from top down (as if drawn on paper) and if the object is in between the attacker and defender, the defender gets cover equal to whatever the cover value is for the intervening object. When they say, “measure from the attacking unit leader’s base” to the “base of the defender”, the 3rd demension is not even considered (I think this is what screws people up).

So the example of Luke’s head being obscured and lower body visible from underneath doesn’t matter cause in 2d Luke is obscured and so he gets cover equal to whatever the x-wing’s value is. 

That's exactly right!

And for folks who are bothered by how that interacts with terrain like the Xwing wing, it's very easy during the pre-game terrain declaration phase to simply consider the area under closed s-foils as a different piece of terrain. For example, one that grants no cover to anyone, but is difficult to move through.

On 12/4/2018 at 10:19 AM, JediPartisan said:

Thanks nashjaee, I’ve been doing it wrong. I think I get it now, and it’s simpler than I thought.

When checking for cover, you look at everything from top down (as if drawn on paper) and if the object is in between the attacker and defender, the defender gets cover equal to whatever the cover value is for the intervening object. When they say, “measure from the attacking unit leader’s base” to the “base of the defender”, the 3rd demension is not even considered (I think this is what screws people up).

So the example of Luke’s head being obscured and lower body visible from underneath doesn’t matter cause in 2d Luke is obscured and so he gets cover equal to whatever the x-wing’s value is.

Note that any intervening objects still have to at least partially obscure at least half of the targets from the perspective of the attacking unit leader (from the highest point at the center of the mini) for the defender to receive cover.

Just now, ReoitahiKid said:

Note that any intervening objects still have to at least partially obscure at least half of the targets from the perspective of the attacking unit leader (from the highest point at the center of the mini) for the defender to receive cover.

That is not correct.

The "half of the model" rule is only used during Setup to determine if the terrain provides cover to a particular type of mini

1 hour ago, NeonWolf said:

That is not correct.

The "half of the model" rule is only used during Setup to determine if the terrain provides cover to a particular type of mini

My wording might have been confusing, but I’m not referring to the half of the model rule in this case. I meant half of the defending miniatures have to be at least partially obscured from the attacking leader’s LOS for the defending unit to receive cover.

2 hours ago, ReoitahiKid said:

I meant half of the defending miniatures have to be at least partially obscured from the attacking leader’s LOS for the defending unit to receive cover.

This is true (although there's no "partially obscured."). I think NeonWolf was confused by your response because the question and example has been about Luke, who is a single-mini unit.

14 hours ago, ReoitahiKid said:

My wording might have been confusing, but I’m not referring to the half of the model rule in this case. I meant half of the defending miniatures have to be at least partially obscured from the attacking leader’s LOS for the defending unit to receive cover.

Ah, yes, I misunderstood your example.

13 hours ago, Turan said:

This is true (although there's no "partially obscured."). I think NeonWolf was confused by your response because the question and example has been about Luke, who is a single-mini unit.

Good point. I was trying to clarify the general rules for determining cover, as it seemed that JediPartisan might have missed that step, but I should have worded it as something like “LOS must be at least partially blocked.”

I'd like to flip this a little, @NeonWolf and @nashjaee I'm especially interested in your responses.

So, someone put out an alternate sculpt of Boba Fett. This Fett is walking and has no flight peg. I mentioned that this would cause the model to have more access to cover than a standard Fett because terrain that only occludes the base or peg but not any of the model on a standard Fett wouldn't matter. (page 24, When determining whether a piece of terrain 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.).

People of course said that there's no way that this could ever happen that a piece of terrain blocks his base and not his feet. (terrain rants in different places)

So, here's two different examples of exactly where a non-pegged mini would have cover whereas a flying Boba does not.

Apparently the LVO people are saying that the flight peg rules don't matter and such alternate models are legal and grounding Boba doesn't count as a "significant" alteration. I'm interested in what you all think.

9 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

People of course said that there's no way that this could ever happen that a piece of terrain blocks his base and not his feet. (terrain rants in different places)

Besides your given examples, being on the edge of a Height 1 building could also result in only the base being obscured.

As soon as I saw the Boba Fett model was on a clear peg I knew this would come up, especially since it is very easy to "model for advantage" without making the model look bad by just giving him a rock to launch off of instead of floating.

Edit: and I'm not sure what sort of responses you are looking for, but as far as I'm concerned, Boba is in the open in all three of those photos, and the top one is questionable for the Stormtrooper depending on what you agreed with your opponent regarding if that lip can provide cover or not.

@Zrob314

I would also say that the mini in your examples is in the open and would receive no cover.

As for the alternate sculpt I think it comes down to what type of game you are playing. Hanging out at home/casual game at a FLGS then it will be up to the two people playing.

Per page 5 of the Tournament Regulations under Component Modifications at any "official" events, even a Relaxed Tier event, then it will be up to the TO/Marshal of that event to determine if the model would be usable. While the folks running the LVO event may be prominent in the community, they may be more interested in the "rule of cool" than they are in the potential for setting a precedent that could affect future events.

I would hope that when we get to Adepticon and Worlds next year the TOs of those events would require the use of official FFG models to avoid this exact issue.

9 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Apparently the LVO people are saying that the flight peg rules don't matter and such alternate models are legal and grounding Boba doesn't count as a "significant" alteration.

If it's an actual alternate sculpt, that is 100% not legal according to tournament rules published by Fantasy Flight. If you mean someone using the original mini and attaching him directly to the base without the flight peg, there was a discussion thread about that here the week Fett came out. My opinion was (and continues to be) that would be considered a "significant alteration" according to tournament rules for exactly the reason you're bringing up - yes, his flight peg doesn't provide much elevation, but whether his base is included in cover or not is quite significant.

I don't know anything about the people running...the Las Vegas Open? but any large organized play ignoring any published rules of a game is just stupidly done.

@Turan

Just to be clear, here is the entry from the Tournament Regulations regarding modifying minis. This is the second bullet point on page 5 under Component Modification.

Quote

Players cannot modify minis or use bases to significantly alter their size, height, or shape. The marshal is responsible for determining the legality of any miniature modifications. Players that have made more than minor alterations should check with the marshal before an event to determine if their mini or official terrain is legal. The marshal at a Relaxed event will likely be more flexible than at a Formal event when determining a mini’s legality, while the marshal may allow the least flexibility at Premier events.

So, as I said above, per the T-Regs it is entirely up to the Marshall/TO of whatever event the mini is being used in. My guess is that until someone tries to use an alternate (non-FFG) sculpt in a Premier level event, like the Las Vegas Open (LVO) then there will not be any further clarification on what constitutes a "significant" alteration.

Personally, I'd say that if it is a competitive event, use the model from the box. If it's at an FLGS or home, use whatever you and your opponent agree on.

9 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

the top one is questionable for the Stormtrooper depending on what you agreed with your opponent regarding if that lip can provide cover or not.

So, the backing bit is just a couple of boards I put up for photo purposes. It's this thing.

https://www.battlekiwi.com/product/transmission-substation/

So, theoretically you'd define this whole piece as providing heavy cover in the beginning of the match, right? You don't...near as I can find, define different subsections of the piece as providing different levels of cover, or am I incorrect?

Now, just to make sure this is correct, and please assume best intentions here.....this could cut me just as deeply as it could anyone else. So even if you do define the different subsections of a piece of terrain, what happens if a piece gets missed? Say there's an antenna sticking out on a piece that was defined as providing heavy cover. if the game started and no one said/agreed "but the antennas don't give cover at all" then even the very furthest tip of the antenna gives heavy cover, right?

Also, wouldn't the AT-RT be the standard for this? "When treated as area terrain, the AT-RT forms a cylindrical zone, defined by the edges of it’s base and the highest point of it’s mini. When checking line of sight, a defending mini obscured by this zone will benefit from light cover." So even the very tip of the antenna on an AT-RT will give the cover.

Now, here's the other thing though that's confusing me. "If the attacking unit leader’s base is touching a piece of terrain, that piece of terrain cannot cause a mini in the defender to be obscured, unless line of sight from the unit leader to that mini is completely blocked."

So, move down to the picture on the bottom of page 24....if the unit leader's base is touching that barricade, and thus the AT-ST cannot see his legs, the rebel trooper's don't get the benefits of the cover.

Or, if the Trooper Leader there had a Z-6 next to him and both of them are touching that barricade, the Z-6 can't get cover?

Please help.

@Zrob314 For that particular piece of terrain I'd define it as "Heavy cover if behind, no cover if on top" before the game. I've also defined terrain on the fly if we discovered we missed some weird part like an antenna (not a common feature on most terrain in my area as they are fragile and don't hold up well to transportation). Either interpretation is technically valid so long as both players agree/are consistent. The AT-RT is treated as "area terrain" not a "Large Object" like a building. From page 9: "Buildings come in all shapes and sizes, from the simple huts of Tatooine to the fortified bunkers constructed by the Galactic Empire. For the sake of simplicity, most buildings are generally best treated as large pieces of impassable terrain, but sometimes players may wish to incorporate more nuance." So yes, you can get nuanced when defining terrain per the rules.

2 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Now, here's the other thing though that's confusing me. "If the attacking unit leader’s base is touching a piece of terrain, that piece of terrain cannot cause a mini in the defender to be obscured, unless line of sight from the unit leader to that mini is completely blocked."

So, move down to the picture on the bottom of page 24....if the unit leader's base is touching that barricade, and thus the AT-ST cannot see his legs, the rebel trooper's don't get the benefits of the cover.

Or, if the Trooper Leader there had a Z-6 next to him and both of them are touching that barricade, the Z-6 can't get cover?

Please help.

... I am confused by your presented situations. For one thing, "Cover" is a per unit thing, "obscured" is a per model determination from the unit leader of the attacker, and the picture on page 24 is outlining determining if a model is obscured. Lastly, you seem to be ignoring the part of the rule that specifies the "attacking unit leader's base."

Let's say you have a Rebel squad consisting of just a unit leader and a Z-6 (Defender) being targeted by an AT-ST(Attacker) (which is a unit leader of a unit of size one, more on that later). Let's further say that the diagram on page 9 shows the position of the AT-ST and Z-6, and the Rebel unit leader is touching the barricade. Line of sight to the Z-6 from the AT-ST would be unobscured, however line of sight from the AT-ST to the unit leader would be obscured. Since the barricade is obscuring line of sight to at least half of the defending unit (the rebel troopers), then the barricade provides heavy cover to the unit.

Now, let's keep the Rebel troopers in the same location, but now move the AT-ST up to touch the barricade as well. Now when the AT-ST goes to check line of sight the barricade cannot obscure miniatures in the "defending" Rebel unit since the "unit leader" of the AT-ST unit is touching the barricade. So you check how many models are obscured and now the number is zero, which is less than half of two (the number of models in the "Defending" unit), so the Rebels do not get any cover.

11 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

Just to be clear, here is the entry from the Tournament Regulations regarding modifying minis.

Okay? I've read the regulations, and I don't understand what your post has to do with what I said. I said:

1 - Using a fan-made mini, which is what Zrob was talking about, is forbidden. Look on page 5, it says "During tournament play, each player is required to use the components included in official STAR WARS: Legion products." That doesn't require clarification and it is not up to the Marshall/TO if they're claiming to be running an official Legion event.

2 - I also said it was my opinion that using the FFG Fett without the flight peg would be a significant alteration. Perhaps you didn't see me say it's my opinion, but it's in there.

43 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

"attacking unit leader's base."

Brain shorted and I simply did not see the worked "attacking" no matter how many times I looked at the sentence. Apologies. Thank you.

However, my understanding on the interaction between "obscured" and "cover" is that you must be "obscured" in order to apply the effects of terrain cover and a mini that is not "obscured" cannot get the cover. (or in the case of a multi mini group half of the croup must be obscured to get the benefit of cover for the group.

1 minute ago, Zrob314 said:

Brain shorted and I simply did not see the worked "attacking" no matter how many times I looked at the sentence. Apologies. Thank you.

No worries, I've been there. Glad I could help!

Just now, Caimheul1313 said:

No worries, I've been there. Glad I could help!

Post has been edited, more stuff to read.

4 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

However, my understanding on the interaction between "obscured" and "cover" is that you must be "obscured" in order to apply the effects of terrain cover and a mini that is not "obscured" cannot get the cover. (or in the case of a multi mini group half of the croup must be obscured to get the benefit of cover for the group.

Units benefit from "cover" if more than half the models in the unit are "obscured." Cover is used to cancel the attacker's dice well before anything is allocated to individual models, so how would you even apply cover on a model by model basis within a multi-model unit?

I don't really see what you're asking here honestly. Half or more of ALL units (technically even single model units, although checking them is much more straightforward) have to be "obscured" for the unit to benefit from cover. What kind of cover is applied when more than half of a unit is obscured is supposed to be determined before the game (None, Light, Heavy). Buildings and other structures being "large objects" can have area terrain on top (or open terrain), but still count for heavy cover themselves. So, if the core portion of the structure is obscuring (in your example photo, I'd say the portion of the structure from the table to where the miniatures are sitting), I'd call that heavy cover, but I'd treat the top (the flat area on top, including any slight protrusions) as open ground. If we agreed to such a determination before the game, then since just that low area is "Obscuring" neither model would have cover. If however the models were on the other side of that terrain, or Luke was looking at them from a lower angle so their base was obscured by the "core portion" as previously defined, then I'd say they have Heavy cover since that is what is provided by the obscuring terrain.

40 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I don't really see what you're asking here honestly.

I think we're talking past each other on this. no worries.

14 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Now, here's the other thing though that's confusing me. "If the attacking unit leader’s base is touching a piece of terrain, that piece of terrain cannot cause a mini in the defender to be obscured, unless line of sight from the unit leader to that mini is completely blocked."

So, move down to the picture on the bottom of page 24....if the unit leader's base is touching that barricade, and thus the AT-ST cannot see his legs, the rebel trooper's don't get the benefits of the cover.

Or, if the Trooper Leader there had a Z-6 next to him and both of them are touching that barricade, the Z-6 can't get cover?

Your situation is very confusing to read because you seem to be going back and forth between which unit is attacking.

The rule you quoted says that a piece of terrain the attacking unit leader is next to can't block line of sight on them shooting out from it. So you're asking about how it interacts with the AT-ST being able to see their legs behind the barricade which is when those Rebel troopers are defending , not attacking. The rule doesn't say anything that applies to that situation.

The most common way that rule comes up in games for me is when I have a unit against the corner of a building. I intentionally placed him so the building blocks part of the figure so he gets heavy cover from anyone shooting at him. But when I check line of sight out from him when attacking, so long as a bit of his head is beyond the wall so I can see part of a target mini, they don't get cover from the building, even though it's preventing me from seeing all of them, because I'm touching it.

17 minutes ago, Turan said:

Your situation is very confusing to read because you seem to be going back and forth between which unit is attacking.

This was addressed right after your previous post.

9 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

I think we're talking past each other on this. no worries.

My confusion stems from your use of "however," which indicates it will be followed by a contradictory statement, but then you basically restate what I said, that a unit only gains "cover" from a piece of terrain if more than half of the models in said unit are "obscured" by said terrain. Which is how the rules work to the best of my understanding.

2 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

This was addressed right after your previous post.

Sorry, I missed that.