Hi guys,

this situation came on my playing group with the 1.4 FD Laser Cannon Team: The emplacement was deployed in front of barricades and we hadn't clear if the barricades were providing cover or not. I know that player should decide beforehand which element of terraig is giving what cover toi which units, but we didn't thought about the FD until deployment. In one hand, troopers and an E-Web will get cover (heavy) with no discussion, but what about the FD? If we take the RRG, they suggest that if a piece of terrain is at leat about the 50% the height of the mini, it will provide cover. The big dish of the FD pops a lot out of cover so it seems that barricades is not enough. But also, emplacement troopers are considered troopers, and barricades provide cover to troops...

for the moment, we decided that if a canon of that sort is deployed in front of a barricade, it was build there to get the cover, so we gave them cover. What do you think?

Emplacement Troopers, p. 29: "Any game effect that targets or applies to troopers can target or apply to emplacement troopers."

Barricades, p. 16: "The barricades in the core set provide troopers with heavy cover."

You can decide otherwise if your opponent agrees before the game while you're defining the terrain, but the rules as written are straightforward.

The RRG released today specify that emplacement troopers get cover from barricades

On 11/19/2018 at 5:16 PM, YuriPanzer said:

Hi guys,

this situation came on my playing group with the 1.4 FD Laser Cannon Team: The emplacement was deployed in front of barricades and we hadn't clear if the barricades were providing cover or not. I know that player should decide beforehand which element of terraig is giving what cover toi which units, but we didn't thought about the FD until deployment. In one hand, troopers and an E-Web will get cover (heavy) with no discussion, but what about the FD? If we take the RRG, they suggest that if a piece of terrain is at leat about the 50% the height of the mini, it will provide cover. The big dish of the FD pops a lot out of cover so it seems that barricades is not enough. But also, emplacement troopers are considered troopers, and barricades provide cover to troops...

for the moment, we decided that if a canon of that sort is deployed in front of a barricade, it was build there to get the cover, so we gave them cover. What do you think?

I think in this case the "mini" would be the troopers rather than the cannon itself.

7 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

I think in this case the "mini" would be the troopers rather than the cannon itself.

No, the mini is the whole thing. It has to be, as the game doesn't distinguish between different parts of models.

From the latest RRG page 16:

Quote

A barricade provides emplacement troopers with cover.

14 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

I think in this case the "mini" would be the troopers rather than the cannon itself.

The miniature, according to the rules, is the entire plastic sculpt. There's no such thing as a sculpt on a base that is half mini and half terrain.

18 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

No, the mini is the whole thing. It has to be, as the game doesn't distinguish between different parts of models.

Emplacement Troopers, p. 29: "Any game effect that targets or applies to troopers can target or apply to emplacement troopers."

That's where I got my logic from. It's a trooper unit. I think Either interpretation could be just as valid, and not one I'd make much of a fuss over.

4 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Emplacement Troopers, p. 29: "Any game effect that targets or applies to troopers can target or apply to emplacement troopers."

That's where I got my logic from. It's a trooper unit. I think Either interpretation could be just as valid, and not one I'd make much of a fuss over.

I honestly don't understand how you got your logic from that. Sure it's a Trooper unit, specifically an Emplacement Trooper unit. That has nothing to do with counting or not counting parts of the mini as the mini. That would be like not counting the rider of the AT-RT because he's not a vehicle.

19 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

I honestly don't understand how you got your logic from that. Sure it's a Trooper unit, specifically an Emplacement Trooper unit. That has nothing to do with counting or not counting parts of the mini as the mini. That would be like not counting the rider of the AT-RT because he's not a vehicle.

An AT-RT is not a trooper unit.

Here.....okay, an AT-RT deals with the hit points of the vehicle, not the pilot, hence why it can get disabled but never panics.

An FD-1 deals with the hit points of the troopers. The troopers can panic, the gun cannot be disabled or ionized. That leads me to believe that the important part of the miniature is the people shooting rather than the thing the shots come from. So that's why I infer that the height of the humanoids is more important that the height of the gun.

It's cool you disagree, and I recognize my inference is very likely incorrect. There is, however, a solid logic behind it.

I mean emplacements already have exceptions...they are a trooper unit that provides cover to other trooper units.

4 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

There is, however, a solid logic behind it.

This is the problem, you shouldn't involve logic into this 😁

My point is that the rules shouldn't (and doesn't) let the players decide which part or a mini/sculpture is used for any purpose, that being measure line of sight, cover or whatever, you always do that for the whole sculpture. That is because they need to be clear under any circumstance and to avoid players to discuss over this matters (one could say for example that the hat of a trooper mini doesn't count, another that it does, another that the weapon doesn't count, etc), and that is why for example the cover rules are so strict and if you define a piece of terrain to give cover to a certain type of unit, it gives it's cover even if it is only covering part of the base and nothing of the mini, even if logically it doesn't make sense.

38 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

There is, however, a solid logic behind it.

It might be solid real world logic. But it is certainly not solid in-game logic.

Mixing those up will just lead one to confuse themself. In the real world, another member of the unit might pick up the heavy weapon if that guy goes down. In the game, that’s not how it works.