Picture this:

Stormtroopers are shooting at Luke Skywalker. Luke is standing behind the wing of an X-Wing, which covers his head. The Stormtroopers have a completely clear line of sight on the rest of Luke, and there are no other obstructions on the ground between them.

Does Luke have cover?

Relevant rules section, page 23:

Quote

If any part of a defending mini, including its base, is blocked by a piece of terrain, 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.

By the RAW, no, he doesn't have cover because of that rule you quoted.

Unless you go with the common interpretation that the "imaginary line" from base to base is a 2D top down projection...

*shrug*

I can see it going either way, though personally I'd prefer the version where he doesn't have cover unless he's behind the landing strut.

For me, nope, more because of common sense rather than pure rules.

As you were commenting on Facebook, I would stablish with the oponent if the terrain element provides cover. You can do something like "ok, the frame of the X Wing provides, but the wings do not".

On 9/17/2018 at 2:10 PM, CaptainRocket said:

Unless you go with the common interpretation that the "imaginary line" from base to base is a 2D top down projection...

*shrug*

I can see it going either way, though personally I'd prefer the version where he doesn't have cover unless he's behind the landing strut.

My issue with this interpretation is that any sort of arch be it large or itty bitty would mean the terrain would provide no cover at all.

31 minutes ago, WillKill said:

My issue with this interpretation is that any sort of arch be it large or itty bitty would mean the terrain would provide no cover at all.

I must not be understanding the image in your mind...I have plenty of buildings with arch shapes that provide cover in many positions.

25 minutes ago, Turan said:

I must not be understanding the image in your mind...I have plenty of buildings with arch shapes that provide cover in many positions.

They would not provide cover if the line is drawn at on the ground from base to base Vs. from a top down view as the line would pass under the arch thus not touching the terrain

3 hours ago, WillKill said:

They would not provide cover if the line is drawn at on the ground from base to base Vs. from a top down view as the line would pass under the arch thus not touching the terrain

That is how the rules instruct you to determine cover...so you have terrain with an arched opening that is low enough that it's blocking a mini's head or shoulders or something. Yes, that doesn't provide cover against an attack if they're standing in the open with the arch crossing in front of them. Unless, of course, both players agreed before the game that it should function as area terrain.

I'm just confused as to your original point about

4 hours ago, WillKill said:

any sort of arch be it large or itty bitty

Why would shooting through a large arch grant any cover in the first place?

My interpretation of the rule is that the line from base to base just has to cross the obscuring terrain from a top down perspective. I’d like to see this clarified, in any case, as if I’m wrong it invalidates several types of terrain that should provided cover (pipelines raised slightly off the ground, etc.)

13 hours ago, ReoitahiKid said:

My interpretation of the rule is that the line from base to base just has to cross the obscuring terrain from a top down perspective  .

Where do you get that from? The example on page 23 of the RRG clearly shows the straight line drawn between the bases goes through the terrain, it doesn't hop up on top of it.

Additionally, if that were true, it would be impossible to ever check cover between two units from base-to-base if one of them were underneath a piece of terrain (an underhang or inside a building).

17 hours ago, Turan said:

Why would shooting through a large arch grant any cover in the first place?

I meant any sort of archway. If the terrain doesn't totally touch the ground you end up with no cover. In other scenarios, if any portion of the base is obscured you draw the line and it can end up giving full cover effects even though only 1% of a base was obscured. Now in this scenario you end up having 95% of the figure obscured and no cover which seems very odd.

23 minutes ago, WillKill said:

I meant any sort of archway.

I gotcha! Thanks for the illustration of your intent. I agree it seems odd if you're comparing it to real life, but, of course, every game is going to have things that seem odd compared to real life unless the makers go to great depths to make it a simulation, which Legion is intentionally not.

The upside is, the game doesn't come with anything that looks like that, so you can just choose not to make/print/whatever terrain that looks like that if you find it jarring.

Or, more to the point, agree with your opponent when you're defining the terrain before the game that those panels should be area terrain giving heavy cover. I feel like a lot of the oddness going around with the cover rules overlook that basic, first step of defining each piece.

11 minutes ago, Turan said:

I feel like a lot of the oddness going around with the cover rules overlook that basic, first step of defining each piece.

The issue is that in that step you would say "Ok Mr. Opponent, this piece provides heavy cover to infantry." No arguments there. But then when determining if the heavy cover can be applied is where all the issues arise. You would have to tell your opponent something along the lines that this piece of terrain provides heavy cover and this gap on the bottom should be ignored which is not normal unless the terrain piece is something complicated like a building.

Just now, WillKill said:

You would have to tell your opponent something along the lines that this piece of terrain provides heavy cover and this gap on the bottom should be ignored

No, you would suggest it be considered area terrain, which is what I said. Read up on it on page 8 of the RRG - area terrain is considered to exist everywhere the outline of the shape defined, regardless of small spaces.

1 hour ago, Turan said:

No, you would suggest it be considered area terrain, which is what I said. Read up on it on page 8 of the RRG - area terrain is considered to exist everywhere the outline of the shape defined, regardless of small spaces.

That would be odd too because in the RRG it describes what kinds of terrain area terrain would be. They normally have some sort of base that troopers and such can walk on

5 hours ago, Turan said:

Where do you get that from? The example on page 23 of the RRG clearly shows the straight line drawn between the bases goes through the terrain, it doesn't hop up on top of it.

Additionally, if that were true, it would be impossible to ever check cover between two units from base-to-base if one of them were underneath a piece of terrain (an underhang or inside a building).

I think there are far more instances where it would be impossible or impractical to check using a line that is arbitrarily at base height. And if I’m right in my interpretation, you wouldn’t even need to check this if the target was obscured from above.

Typically, the easiest way to check lines like this is to look down from above using something like the range ruler held over the battlefield. As the rules don’t specify the height at which the line is to be traced (if any), I still think a clarification is needed.

The illustration shows the lines at base height because that’s the easiest way to show the concept in that diagram, but it makes more sense to me that the line just needs to cross the terrain in question from a top-down perspective, not necessarily go through it. To me, this check is just to determine whether or not terrain that partially obscures a target is directly in the line of fire, and that shouldn’t exclude features that just happen to not block the shot at base height.

6 hours ago, WillKill said:

That would be odd too because in the RRG it describes what kinds of terrain area terrain would be

Not really - the first rule in the book regarding terrain is that the players define each piece. In fact, them addressing ruins in area terrain is exactly what you've been describing - broken pieces of wall or windows jutting out that you'd want to provide cover to the minis behind them.

Was good to see this clarified in the new version of the rules reference:

When determining whether an imaginary line traced
between the centers of two minis' bases crosses a piece
of terrain, the line is always treated as horizontal to the
battlefield, on a two-dimensional plane. A player should
look down from above the battlefield to determine
whether the imaginary line crosses a piece of terrain.

So it turns out Luke would receive cover in the example given.

On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 1:58 PM, ReoitahiKid said:

imaginary line crosses a piece of terrai  n  .

How does he get cover if the 2d line goes along the table it would still not cross any terrain. See the visual example by willkill the line still would not cross the terrain as it runs along the table

1 hour ago, Steelgolem said:

How does he get cover if the 2d line goes along the table it would still not cross any terrain. See the visual example by willkill the line still would not cross the terrain as it runs along the table

The way they’ve described it may sound a bit funky, but it’s a plane rather than a line. As the description says, you look from the top down to see if any terrain is crossed because it is a top-down projection.

This is where most games have a clause stating "we can't write rules to cover every situation, use your common sense and come to an agreement". I wish I'd seen such a line in Legion, maybe I missed it though.

11 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

This is where most games have a clause stating "we can't write rules to cover every situation, use your common sense and come to an agreement". I wish I'd seen such a line in Legion, maybe I missed it though.

Page 4 has:

On 9/17/2018 at 1:06 PM, groggydog said:

Picture this:

Stormtroopers are shooting at Luke Skywalker. Luke is standing behind the wing of an X-Wing, which covers his head. The Stormtroopers have a completely clear line of sight on the rest of Luke, and there are no other obstructions on the ground between them.

Does Luke have cover?

Relevant rules section, page 23:

There is also the “Additional Terrain Rules” on pg 8 of the RRG, under the Cover Type heading.

”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.”

So if 50% of Luke’s upper body is blocked, he has cover. If 50% of Luke’s upper body isn’t blocked, then he doesn’t get cover.

They probably should have made this rule more prominent. It would solve more arguments.

4 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

There is also the “Additional Terrain Rules” on pg 8 of the RRG, under the Cover Type heading.

”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.”

So if 50% of Luke’s upper body is blocked, he has cover. If 50% of Luke’s upper body isn’t blocked, then he doesn’t get cover.

They probably should have made this rule more prominent. It would solve more arguments.

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.”

6 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

They probably should have made this rule more prominent. It would solve more arguments.

It is not intended to solve any arguments, because it is not used during gameplay.

However, the latest RRG does include additional wording that addresses this thread. They changed it to say the line to check for obstruction from cover is viewed top down as a vertical plane.