You know? I saw people arguing about this or that rule here, people who know about what they are talking… why waiting for FFG? You are the comunity and nobody can tell you how to play a game, If I only knew how to balance all this stuff I would do it just for the fun of doing it, but Im just starting with wargaming and have no experience. It's obvious that they haven't playtest it enough, so far I haven't seen anyone comming with a solution for problems that arose, you know them, why not speak with one voice and agree on something? give up an idea and let other playtest it, open source rules, That sounds like something beautifull man, just like that game for playstation "Journey".

a lot of the "if you are within a peice of terrain, you recieve it as cover" is due to rules reguarding indirect fire, where lines are not drawn from unit leader to each defending miniature.

the rule where you draw a line and ANY obstruction grants cover if clear - if the line reaches the model BEFORE it is obstructed by cover, the cover doesnt count, even if half the defending miniatures base is on it.

caecitas said:

Indirect fire still uses line of site - you do it from the artillery squad. And the explanation the rules uses for differentiating between cover that only works with obstructed line of sight is very specifically not an indirect fire example. Please see my above post on this where I go through all the relevent rules passages. The rules may be confusing on this, but in the end there is only one way to properly interpret them.

drawing line of sight and drawing from attacking unit leader to defending miniatures are two seperate events.

you draw line of sight to see if you can see any part of a miniature in a unit, working out which miniatures can and cannot be hurt.

you then draw lines to work out who is obscured and thus gaining cover.

when artillery fire, it says nothing of drawing lines from a squad leader to defending miniatures. You simply draw line of sight from the unit with the artillery strike ability.

Hmm, another thing I think the rules aren't too clear on.

Either way, my reasons for my interpretation don't really have to do with that - my reasons are listed above, and as I said, they give an example of how terrain that you don't get cover from touching differs from terrain that does give you cover by touching it, and it's *not* an artillery example, and that pretty much seals the deal fo rme.

the cover rule on page 39 that talks about players deciding that some terrain does not grant cover by virtue of simply touching it is poorly written, admitedly. What i think they are trying to say is terrain that tends to have its own base (i.e tank traps sat on cardboard). Using the example of a wall is insane, as i would presume no right thinking person would claim being on the same side of a stone wall as an enemy would grant you cover from that wall.

it is page 39 that makes things confusing due to poor wording - "inside an area of terrain is affected by it, either for movement purposes or for the purposes of cover". Hell, that could mean one or the other, not both. It could mean both, it could mean neither.

As far as im conserned its clear they intended for drawing lines to be the way to tell if a unit is in cover or not. This "touching and it counts" could apply to when the line passes through said terrain or not. Its mainly to let players use odd scenary from other games id wager.

caecitas said:

You can't just say that a rule is poorly written just because it doesn't say what you want it to say… there are plenty of rules lawyers that would try to claim that touching the wall gives them cover, and some other kinds of terrain could be a little less obvious than the wall example.

And the part on page 39 specifically references the cover section on page 43, so it *must* mean it affects cover.

Anyways, I'm repeating myself now, which is pointless, so I will stop at this post. You are, of course, free to play it how you wish. Really, the difference isn't that huge, although my interpretation is heck of a lot less fiddly as cover is much more obvious, and there is not nearly as often a need to check for obscured LOS, and a lot less room for arguing between players. So that in itself makes it worth playing it that way.

thats what im saying Felkor - the wall touching example from the wrong side is clearly someone trying to abuse the rules or twist in for their own purposes.

it does indeed point from page 39 to 43, yet page 41 discusses how obscured line of sight works. It stats that "if at least half of the miniatures in a unit are considered obscured, then that unit is considered to be obscured and teh unit will gain the benifits of the terrains cover type".

the problem is page 39 also claims touching terrain grants the assosiated save from that cover type, yet the line drawing example on page 41 clearly shows the defending squad leader as outside of cover.

it doesnt make a huge difference, no. It affected none of the 10+ games ive played so far, yet i think having this FAQ'ed wouldnt hurt.

still, if someone says "well half his base is touching that rim of a forrest" ill be ruling that it doesnt count if the line drawn during checking for obstruction reaches the models base before the terrains.

If just touching terrain grants cover think about this

Gorillas move to within 3 inches of a suppressed unit of rangers on their second action. Since the Rangers are suppressed, they can't react. Both units are now in the same piece of area terrain that grants hard cover.

The Ranger player wins initiative and waits until the unit phase to attack, Gorilla player does the same

In the unit phase the Ranger players decides to shoot at the Gorillas; the Gorillas are able to react and choose to do so with a CC attack. (interesting that you can respond to a shooting attack with CC but not the other way around). If felkor's correct about how cover works, the Gorillas will ignore two hits for the cover save, however, the Rangers will get no cover save as cover cannot negate damage from CC attacks.

This kind of makes me scratch my head just like a unit touching the same side of a wall as a unit shooting at it getting a hard cover wall.

I think people are trying to interpret cover rules as they exist in other games.

.

Morning Ed.

Just to clarify for you while that doesnt add up, page 41.

"a unit leader that has its base touching, or within an area of terrain ignores that terrain for the purposes of obscured line of sight but not blocked line of sight. The unit treats the area as open terrain. This includes terrain that both the target and the attacker are within"

if they are both in the same terrain, no cover saves are allowed atall, they are ignored. Being in the same forrest as a defending unit removes its cover save.

Its correct however that you can react with a close combat attack if you so wish when shot at and within 3'', but you cannot reach to a close combat attack with shooting.

I came to the same conclusion as Felkor on my first (and all subsequent) reading(s) of the rules. Also, for what it's worth, I've read and played nearly every miniature game's rules available since receiving two of them for my 12th birthday in 1978. I don't tout that to claim I'm right, as I could be wrong. However, I do have a lot of experience with terrain rulings and have served as a demo rep and TO for many, many games systems for many, many years now, in several different locations throughout the globe. With my experience, I state confidently, "Felkor's conclusions appear to be the most correct and I feel are quite clear without further clarification needed."

Ymmv, just my 2 cents from an old grognard.