In the picture above, does the defending unit get a cover save? Yes or no?

no.

the line drawn to the defending unit reaches its base before the terrain (see page 41 picture example).

if it was being struck by artillery it would be in cover as it is touching the terrain.

No. Look on page 41 of the rulebook. There is a photo of a Lothar engaging an allied squad. The closest model to the Lothar has the back of it's base in cover, like in your drawing. The book says that model is not in cover. The model needs to be obscured to benefit from cover.

Thanks guys. I don't have the book with me but I'll check out the diagram on page 41 when I get home.

If you have terrain without a base (like a tank trap), how would you play it with terrain like this? With terrain with bases, or for hills, where the unit can physically be on the terrain, this all seems straightforward. But if I have tank traps that don't have bases, what do I do with those? Using them for cover becomes extremely difficult (since I can't place my units on top of the tank traps, practically speaking), and I don't think the point of tank traps is that they're very hard for units to use as cover because the attacker could just move a bit so that LOS isn't obscured. So besides adding a base to tank traps, what would you do? Would you rule that if within 2" (or some other distance) that you're in cover? Or that if you're touching, LOS is obstructed? Or would you just leave as is, and the defender has to make sure they're behind it?

you agree to the terrains base. draw a line from the midle 4 inches out is probably the best way.

caecitas said:

Hey guys,

I don't think this is correct - check out page 39, where it says "any miniature with its bas touching, inside or partially inside an area of terrain is affected by it, either for movement purposes or the purposes of cover." The model in Felkor's diagram would get cover.

I'm pretty sure obscured line of sight only matters for terrain that lies between two units, that neither is touching. In the photo on page 41 the leader of the allied unit is actually not touching the cover (the bunker structure). I think the rubble on the ground is making it confusing.

Just my opinion, of course - thanks.

Donburg:

This was my opinion as well up until this morning (if you look at the More Questions thread below this one, you'll see me quite vehemently defend what you say here.)

But my mind has changed. If you look in the Attack section, it fairly plainly states that you determine cover by checking for obstructed line of site.

There are ways that touching the base of terrain *does* affect the unit, so it does matter:
1) If attacked by artillery, there is no obstructed LOS to check, so your unit is in cover even if it's just touching the base of the terrain.

2) If the attacking unit is touching a piece of terrain, you ignore it when determining whether the defending unit gets a cover save.

I agree with you that read on its own, the terrain section states that the unit would get a cover save. However, read on its own, the attacking section would state that touching a base never matters for the defender and you'd only just use obstructing line of site. My current understanding, and that which others on the board are voicing, seems to be the only way these 2 sections can be reconciled.

The rulebook is definitely not well-written enough for these rules, in my opinion. I would still like to hear an official FFG response on this. I've talked to one of the playtesters on the facebook page though, and that player confirmed what the others on this thread are saying - that the defender in my example would not get a cover roll.

I agree this is a bit of mess. FAQ please! It's too bad that the example photo and captions on pg 41 makes things even less clear.

But I also think that these two ways of determining cover aren't mutually exclusive - i.e. there are two ways to claim cover:

1. you're in/touching an area of terrain.

2. your enemy's LOS is obscured.

My read is that the only way you get no cover at all is if you're:

a. not in contact with any terrain

b. your enemy has clear unobscured line of sight

c. your enemy is in contact with the same terrain that you are in/touching

I'm going to stick to any model in base contact gets cover unless you discuss and decide before the game (4th paragraph down on pg 39)

It's a bit simplistic this way, which works fine for my actual terrain models - but I could see it not working with hyper detailed terrain.

Anyway - you guys are hashing this out in the other thread so I'll wait and see.

Thanks.

I was swayed by the consensus but now it appears the consensus does not exist as much as I thought.

I will have to think on this some more, and hopefully when FFG releases a FAQ, they clear this up.

In the end, I don't think it makes that big of a deal. For Donburg and I to play just as we have been (touching the terrain automatically gives you the cover) it would be the same as playing it the way caecitas and Wanted:Cortez play it, if they said that all terrain had an invisible base extending 1/2" away from it. I.E., playing as Dunborg and I have been playing it is the same only all our terrain is 1/2" larger in diameter.

So, nothing to get too excited about, as long as everyone playing plays by the same rules.

Wait a minute… Artillery doesn't negate cover? I just read that burst weapons does but artillery doesnt have burst weapon abillity… another thing to houserule

And one more thing, I want some sandbags, do you think it would be ok, to count it as hard cover for machinegun and soft for heavy stuff?

I was suprised as well that artillery doesn't ingore cover. Being in a forest when artillery comes in doesn't help you - it just gives you extra shrapnel to worry about as the trees overhead explode.

felkor said:

Artillery, using a spotter would draw LoS from the spotter and hence LoS could be obstructed if the spotter can't see it…

Thanks mariettabrit. I had wondered that but don't have the book on me.

So then what does touching terrain provide? If obstructed LOS is required to have cover when being attacked by all weapons, then it makes no sense to bring up in the terrain section that touching the terrain means you're in the terrain. If all it does is let you ignore that terrain for obstructions when attacking, then it feels to me like the line from the rulebook that Donburg quoted above from the terrain section is very misleading.

Page 39 mentions cover AND movement for touching the terrain… people are focusing too much on gaining cover from touching, which they would really be affected more for the movement aspect of touching the terrain.

Touching terrain does let the squad leader ignore it for determing who gets cover in the target, so that's relavent too.

I think it's pretty clear with the example on pg41 stating the squad leader does not get cover because there's no area terrain in front of his base when targeting to the center of his base… If the mech was slightly to the side so that the line passed through terrain to reach the center of the leaders base, he would be in cover. If the mech was in the same position then he would never get cover as you can target any part of its base… doesn't have to be to the center of the base.

mariettabrit said:

That said, the book at no point in time explicitly states that touching or being on terrain grants a unit that cover. It seems to me that how units gain cover from terrain is only explicitly laid out in the attacking section, and in that section units only gain cover where LOS is obscured.

The other confusing line in the rulebook is where it states that players may decide that some terrain only provides cover if it affects LOS.

So if some cover only provides cover if it affects LOS, and other cover doesn't have that restriction, then what is the difference between the two if cover is always determined by whether it obstructs LOS?

The answer I got before to this question was artillery, but if artillery still uses spotter's LOS, then that answer is no longer satisfactory.

Contradictory rules. Right. Now this is concrete evidence of an editorial problem. I couldn't agree more with the contention that there needs to be an official errata collection, and as soon as possible.

Warboss Krag said:

it's not that big of a deal… just agree with oppnent how it will be played

mariettabrit said:

Yeah, nothing to get super upset over. In the end it really just amounts to terrain being 1/2" bigger or smaller depending on how you interpret the rules - it just doesn't matter as long as everyone agrees. I would like an official ruling though, but I'm sure it will come.

I emailed this question to FFG last night, so we will see what they say. Hopefully they respond soon. For Dust Tactics, it often takes them weeks to respond (and then half the time their answers are wrong and get changed in a FAQ a little later.) I'm hoping that's just because the Dust Tactics rules are primarily put together by Dust Studios, and for Dust Warfare things will be a bit different.

So here is where I see the 2 contradicting rules.

On page 39:

"Players may decide that some terrain, such as walls, do not provide the benefits of cover unless it interferes with line of sight. This prevents a miniature standing against a wall from gaining the benefits of cover when attacked by enemies that have a clear shot."

So obviously, if you haven't made this exclusion for the terrain, standing against that terrain *does* give cover when attacked by enemies that have a clear shot. Therefore, cover is granted just from touching terrain (unless you've explicitly excluded it.)

But then on Page 40:

"Line of sight is used to determine if the miniatures in the target unit of the attack are entitled to cover rolls, which are very important to the defending unit! First, the player determines which miniatures have their line of sight completely blocked. The player then determines if the miniatures in the target unit are obscured and therefore entitled to a cover roll."

This seems to strongly imply that obscured line of sight is required for a cover roll.

I know some people point at the illustration on page 41 to resolve this issue, but it doesn't resolve the issue, because that illustration demonstrates whether units have obscured line of sight, but *doesn't* demonstrate whether obscured line of sight is required for cover (as my quote from page 40 strongly implies) or that it isn't required for cover (as my quote from page 39 strongly implies.)

However, I now lean on my original interpretation, that if you're touching terrain, you gain the benefits of the cover, for two reasons.

1) On page 39, it says, "Any miniature with its base touching, inside, or partially inside an area of terrain is affected by it, either for movement purposes or for the purposes of cover (see "Cover" on page 43.)" Note that it points you to the Cover section, NOT, the obscured line of sight section. According to this text, if your base is touching terrain, you are affected by it, and page 43 tells you how you're affected by it. The Cover section on page 43 tells you that the effect is that you ignore one hit or two hits depending on type of cover.

2.) On Page 40 and 41, in both instances where it talks about obscured line of sight, it makes a point of starting off by mentioning that it is referring to terrain "situated between the attacking miniature and the target." (page 40.) So it now is clear to me that these sections are referring to a specific kind of terrain (that which is between attacker and defender) rather than all terrain, such as terrain that the unit is touching.

So there you have it. I went from thinking one way, to thinking the opposite way, back to my original thinking. So I'll stick to my original interpretation until someone official says otherwise.

If this helps you, great! If it makes things more confusing for you, sorry! In the end I don't believe it matters a whole lot which way you play as long as both players agree.

Re: Contradictory rules. Not only is this sloppy writing and editing (for that matter, my thread on what's wrong with the editing in Warfare is answered by this thread, in spades!), but it's one of the ways to create unfriendly argument among players, particularly those who are argumentative. I speak of rules lawyers, of course. The only way to discourage them is by creating unambiguous, clear, concise rules (which is also the best way to write a game).

I shall not, like Gimp proposed, give up the game in disgust. I like the concepts, I like the painting, and I like the game-play, since I'm playing among friends. Going into a tournament would do a lot to tarnish that lot of likes, I suspect, since those events tend to bring out the worst in people (distinctly including myself). I just hope FFG gets on its horse and ponies up a comprehensive errata list with utmost dispatch.

the answer is… U can't touch this

Warboss Krag said:

Yes, I have some frusration with the rules ambiguities, but I will not be giving up on this game either. I also only play with friends who don't own this game, so frankly I can make up whatever rules I want and everyone will be fine with it. But I do like to play the game as the designers intended because I think the vast majority of the time this gives the best gameplay.