From the wiki: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Cover For a piece of scenery to be considered a valid Cover, it must conceal at least a third of the target. This means that it must have a height that is equal to or higher than one third of the target's height, and must also cover at least the equivalent of one third of its base. You get cover, if that piece of scenery covers one third of the target area (silhouettes are tubes, so let's cut that tube with a plane perpendicular to the shooters LoF, and take this intersection as the area). Then the second sentence says, it has to cover one third of the one third: take the whole troop scenery has the height equal to or higher than the third of the target's height AND the scenery has to cover at least the third of it's base That sums up to one ninth of the whole.
No, it means that any scenery that is less than a third the height of the trooper can't give cover, and any scenery obscuring less than a third of the width can't give cover.
I'm pretty sure your English is better than mine, but imo that "and must also cover" part means both parts of the sentence has to be fulfilled.
Yes, because something that isn't at least a third of the height and a third of the width can't obscure a third. It's giving the minimum sizes for each dimension, not a minimum area.
So, the smallest piece of scenery that provide cover is a total of 1/9th of the flattened cylinder's area or 5/9th of the flattened cylinder's area? (It's warm and brain isn't happy about it)
It must cover a third. This can be a third horizontally, or a third vertically, but it must be a full third.
Or both vertically and horizontally. For instance, terrain that cover's 1/2 the height and 2/3 of the width also provides cover. Hell you can do it diagonally as well.
Dumb question, just to be sure: we talk about from the point of view of the shooter, right? So a piece of scenery in a rooftop that isn't eligible to the partial cover if used horizontally can become eligible diagonally?
So putting it in semi-logic terms: [MUST cover 1/3 of surface] AND [MUST cover 1/3 of height] AND [MUST cover 1/3 of width] I've always been wondering about terrain that doesn't start from the ground - what about a trooper walking up to an ad billboard, covering it from the waist and up? Strictly physically it's a bit hard to hide your family jewels in that situation, but rules-wise does it still work? POV from source of attack, always when it comes to cover. Not sure I understand the second part, but yeah a small crate at edge of a pier could provide cover against the guy shooting you from the beach even if the crate is too small to provide the same cover against someone on the same pier.
But a cover for 1/3 of the height AND 1/3 of the width (fulfill both points) do not provide the bonus for the cover .. Yet another situation that could easily (very easily) be written far far better than it is Mask
So the "it must conceal at least a third of the target." part is just gibberish, and the actual rule is cover has to cover 1/3 width AND 1/3 height, so a total sum of 1/9?
From what I understand it from answers in this topic, the gibberish part is the strike-.through: For a piece of scenery to be considered a valid Cover, it must conceal at least a third of the target. This means that it must have a height that is equal to or higher than one third of the target's height, and must also cover at least the equivalent of one third of its base. It's redundant and confusing.
Just take a piece of paper from a chequered booklet. Draw a square 3 by 3 squares big. If you mark 1/3 of it's height only then you covered 1/3 of the whole area. Same for width. If you mark 1/3 of width AND 1/3 of height, then you covered 5/9 of the whole area. If you mark the 1/3 width of the area that's 1/3 height (so the union of the first two), then you covered 1/9 of the area. I'm really confused.
Here we have a trooper 1/9 is shaded. Although the cover is at a height that is equal to or higher than one third of the target's height, and also covers at least the equivalent of one third of its base, the cover does not converal at least 1/3 of the target. A vertical strip is shaded, this does cover at least 1/3 of the target. Here the cover is at a height that is equal to or higher than one third of the target's height, and also covers at least the equivalent of one third of its base. Likewise, a horizontal strip is shaded, this also covers 1/3 of the model.t. Here the cover is at a height that is equal to or higher than one third of the target's height, and also covers at least the equivalent of one third of its base. 4/9s are shaded. Again, more than 1/3 of the model is concealed here as well and the cover is at a height that is equal to or higher than one third of the target's height, and also covers at least the equivalent of one third of its base.
There is however an arguement that says is not in cover since, although more than 1/3 of the model is obscured and more than 1/3 of the model height is obscure, 1/3 of the base is not obscured.
Depends how you define 'base'. For base to base contact we are told that as long as silhouette volumes are touching the models are classed as in base to base contact. I don't see why the same principle shouldn't apply to cover.
