Hello there!

Me and my X-Wing community, we recently picked upon Legion as an alternative miniatures hobby. The game is a blast but getting comfortable with a new set of rules is challenging. During my first game, especially long we were puzzled with the questions of Line of Sight and Cover mechanics. As the local Rules Nazi I have decided to put together what I've found on these manners as a handy A4 cheat-sheet we could e.g. print, laminate, and have at our FLGS.

But first, let me ask you, The Wise People of the Internet, whether or not my work is correct and complete on the manner?

Very good summary. Only thing I discovered missing is that if the attacking unit can attack but the leader has no LoS to one or more minis these minis automatically count as minis in heavy cover.

14 minutes ago, Staelwulf said:

Very good summary. Only thing I discovered missing is that if the attacking unit can attack but the leader has no LoS to one or more minis these minis automatically count as minis in heavy cover.

I imagined this would be covered by "more than a half of enemy minis having an obstructing object between them and your Unit Leader" scenario, unless it's true that:

- Even if object is regarded to provide light cover, if said object blocks Unit Leader's LOS, it provides Heavy Cover;

- Even if Unit Leader has base contact with an object, if said object blocks Unit Leader's LOS, it provides (Heavy) Cover even in base contact;

Is either / both of those true?

1. Couldn't find the rule. Maybe I'm wrong here, but this is the way I played it in every tournament so far.

2. True. "» 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."

Thank you @Staelwulf ! I've edited the diagram in the original post to reflect the second rules interaction we've mentioned. The first interaction, whether it is an official condition or a tournament ground rule I've decided to skip if only for the simplicity of the chart...

10 hours ago, Ryfterek said:

Even if object is regarded to provide light cover, if said object blocks Unit Leader's LOS, it provides Heavy Cover;

- Even if Unit Leader has base contact with an object, if said object blocks Unit Leader's LOS, it provides (Heavy) Cover even in base contact;

Both of these are true. The reference for the first one is on page 8.

”Terrain that completely blocks
line of sight always provides heavy cover”

5 hours ago, nashjaee said:

Both of these are true. The reference for the first one is on page 8.

”Terrain that completely blocks
line of sight always provides heavy cover”

Thank you! Updated the cheat-sheet. This last straw broke the camel's neck though and the lines are now crossing *sad R2-Unit beeping noise*

Thank you for doing that!

1 hour ago, Vector Strike said:

Thank you for doing that!

You're very much welcomed! It's only natural I would share this work have I made it anyways in the first place!

That version you've seen however... still had a hole in in... Yet another iteration in te original post!

Can I - finally - make it right, or shall it be a very weird twist on the story of Sisyphus?

2 hours ago, Ryfterek said:

or shall it be a very weird twist on the story of Sisyphus?

That's the life of anyone creating homebrews

But yeah, I vote on improving that!

Excellent flowchart. Is there a higher resolution version? O saved the above pic and it isn't as hi-res as I was expecting.

18 hours ago, Thraug said:

Excellent flowchart. Is there a higher resolution version? O saved the above pic and it isn't as hi-res as I was expecting.

Here, enjoy! A PDF file will be available here for a week from now. ;)

On 5/29/2020 at 9:26 PM, Ryfterek said:

Here, enjoy! A PDF file will be available here for a week from now. ;)

hi,

this link has expired

@Ryfterek As far as I'm aware, but being on top of a terrain piece always provides the cover of the terrain piece, no discussion necessary due to the wording of the cover rules. Part of your base will always be obscured if viewed from below.
Also, half of the defender's mini does NOT need to be obscured. It just has to be obscured (any percentage) and have the line from middle to middle intersect the obscuring terrain when viewed from above (this actually makes archways weird in the way they provide cover).

EDIT: Did you mean "Half of the minis in the defending unit?" In that case, I misread it.

1 hour ago, Deddog said:

hi,

this link has expired

Well, yes, it sure has. I suppose you'd like to access the file? I'll re-upload it then, probably within the next hour.

55 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Ryfterek As far as I'm aware, but being on top of a terrain piece always provides the cover of the terrain piece, no discussion necessary due to the wording of the cover rules. Part of your base will always be obscured if viewed from below.
Also, half of the defender's mini does NOT need to be obscured. It just has to be obscured (any percentage) and have the line from middle to middle intersect the obscuring terrain when viewed from above (this actually makes archways weird in the way they provide cover).

EDIT: Did you mean "Half of the minis in the defending unit?" In that case, I misread it.

As for standing on top - partially true. But if your minis are standing on top of a terrain piece, but the attacker's minis are standing on top of even higher terrain piece, well... It's true that in numerous cases it wouldn't require further inspection by the players, to ensure base is in fact obstructed, but the overall algorithm of the rules logic still includes determining whether or not it's happening, right?

As for the other bit, yes, what I meant is "Is the previous block 'true' when it is checked for at least half of all the miniatures which are part of the defender's unit".

27 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

As for standing on top - partially true. But if your minis are standing on top of a terrain piece, but the attacker's minis are standing on top of even higher terrain piece, well... It's true that in numerous cases it wouldn't require further inspection by the players, to ensure base is in fact obstructed, but the overall algorithm of the rules logic still includes determining whether or not it's happening, right?

As for the other bit, yes, what I meant is "Is the previous block 'true' when it is checked for at least half of all the miniatures which are part of the defender's unit".

The way you wrote the pregame section seems to imply determining a different Cover for the top of the terrain is what I was trying to question. ("Do not forget to decide what Cover is provided by taking the high ground on the elevated surfaces") Cover is determined by Terrain piece, not by what portion of the terrain piece is obscuring, obscured while standing on top by the rules the same as obscured while standing behind. Determining separate cover for separate elements would be a houserule. You could have a situation where terrain is on top of terrain, which is related, but seperate. If the terrain is one piece, then by the wording of the rules, it's all treated as the same object. Which also means that if two units are standing on the object, that object cannot provide cover unless it completely blocks line of sight.
I do agree your interpretation is more logical, but in my opinion that is a modification of the rules, not RAW.

I also indicated that the base would always be obscured from below, I agree that from above needs to be checked on a case by case basis.

As to your second point, then you have an extraneous "a" that could be removed to make it more clear:"Is that the case for at least a half of the Defender's Minis" (emphasis mine). The "a" caused me to assume the "minis" was actually the singular "mini" at first read. "At least half" avoids that misreading.

@Caimheul1313 thank you for your thorough feedback! As for the linguistics, apologies for the misuse of the article "a". Even though I try the best I can there probably always will be some giveaways I'm not a native.

For the terrain and the "Before the Game", what I wrote there comes from a mixture of lecture of the Rules Reference and personal experience from my first games of Legion. In the opening paragraphs of the "Additional Terrain Rules" in the RR (p. 8 ) one can read:

Quote

The terrain rules in this section are designed to accommodate the kind of custom-built terrain found on wargaming tables. However, for the purposes of STAR WARS: LEGION, all that matters is that players agree on which terrain to use and the rules governing that terrain before playing the game. [emphasis mine ~Ryfterek]

Then, later on in the "Large objects" section:

Quote

Some terrain pieces do not fit neatly into a single category, but are instead composed of several different terrain types. This is most commonly found in buildings. (...) 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. [emphasis mine ~Ryfterek]

A wall with a catwalk on top of it - providing heavy cover when ducked behind it's concrete body is rather intuitive, but the same benefit applied while traversing the wired mesh on top is not. We've faced similar scenarios during our first games of Legion. To make things worse, we've only came to realise the problem once one of us got their unit to such a spot, at which point the discussion was naturally biased by what more tactically advantageous to each of the sides. Hence my recommendation to briefly discuss these possible nuances so not to end the game with a taste of misunderstanding and unjust - e.g. in the case of the catwalk-wall, one player assuming its obvious a single piece provides uniform cover while the other assuming its obvious such a construct naturally differs in its benefits. My point is to start the game with a common and uniform understanding of the shape of the battlefield. This may come from going over the rules together or from house-ruling to one's hearth desire. Point is build an agreement.

I don't want to come of as rude arguing while I've asked for the community's feedback in the first place. However I'm trying to highlight this file came to be as a guideline from one beginner to others and is trying to touch upon some things which may not be perfectly clear after single read of the RR.

@Deddog The file is now available once more as a PDF and will be up until June 22nd.

@Ryfterek I apologize if that sounded like I was criticizing your English, I assure you your English is far better than my (insert any other language here). I am also aware there are a lot of "hidden" rules in English which are subconscious for native speakers (in same cases they vary based on region). I was just trying to explain where my confusion came from.

Don't worry about furthering the discussion, that's part of asking for input. You are defending your interpretation, and now I will further defend mine.

I look at the next paragraph after the one you quoted about large objects to understand what is "meant" by nuance.

Quote

In particular, buildings will sometimes have parts that are impassable while the rest is open or difficult terrain—a mini may be able to move through a doorway or a large window as open terrain, but the building’s walls are impassable. When using a piece of terrain with mixed types, players should clearly define the terrain so that there is no ambiguity

Page 9 RRG.
This paragraph says nothing about the windows or doorways providing different cover, just that they are treated as a different terrain "type."

Say I have two buildings, one which is perfectly flat on the top, the other having pipes and wires covering the top. My opponent and I agree that as buildings they both provide heavy cover (we've agreed on a "cover type"). The building that is flat on top we agree is "Open terrain" on the top, while the building with pipes is "Difficult Terrain" ("Terrain type"). If we do not make this distinction, then we treat the tops of both buildings the same (typical default is "open" for my area at least).

Now let us say I have a section of wall with an archway in it. If my opponent and I do not agree that the archway is "open terrain," then per the rules I can't move through it (Terrain Type). We further agree that the wall provides cover it will provide Heavy cover (Cover type). If my miniature is standing in the middle of the archway, completely unobscured, then I get no cover. But if the edge of the base is obscured by the section of wall then I have heavy cover because the line drawn from center to center on a flat, 2D surface and observed from above would intersect the wall segment. The diagrams in the following post illustrate what I mean by the 2D line.

I also realized your diagram does not include Area terrain, which does not actually have to obscure in order to provide cover, it just has to lie in between the Attacker and the Defender, since it provides cover in an invisible "zone" (Page 8).

I will concede that the terrain rules do also indicate they are "guidelines" rather than hard and fast rules, but determining different cover for different parts of terrain is more complicated than most new players need to get into, and is not something I have seen or really heard of before for Legion.