Oh indeed. Personally even if it's the top 1/3 covered I'd say in cover. It's obscures part of the target (-3 MOD) and there is something there to get in the way of the bullets (+3 ARM) so mechanically it works for me.
For me, thinking like this is where the rules break down. if you were 1mm away from cover, the same is true - the target is obscured, there is something in the way of the bullets. My view is that having cover is a trooper actively using the cover to hide them, for a low wall the trooper crouches, popping up every now and then to fire. for a corner, the troop steps back ever shot to hide themselves These are how the trooper gets the visual mod and bonus ARM. Where this falls down is a trooper using something that covers there torso and head as cover.... there's no way you are going to be able to hide your legs there... and unless the trooper is constantly dancing a trained gunman will hit a leg even at distance.
That's a fair point and when you put it like that it does seem a bit silly. However I do enjoy image of a trooper constantly hopping around as the bullets whiz past their legs. I suppose it depends how far you want to go with the abstraction. To be honest there are so many bits of the rules that break down when you stop to think about the implications (same with every game system) that I've kind of stopped looking too closely.
IMO it's pretty clear the base refers to the actual base of the model. If we go by the logic of "base" means silhouette like it does for "base to base" contact, there's no reason to call out a height requirement separately. If they wanted base to mean width, they would have said that. Cover has to cover your feet yo.
We really have a discussion here...? The rules couldn't be more clear in this point: Partial Cover Partial Cover partially blocks the attacker's vision of his target. Requirements The target of the BS Attack must be in base contact with a piece of scenery. For a piece of scenery to be considered a valid Cover, it must conceal at least a third of the target. And yes, base contact it is easily translated here like "siluette". No need to think more about it. Greetings
wich facts? You need to have a third of your miniature conceals with cover, at least... What more do you need to know if you have, or haven't, cover? Now with the siluettes are relatively easy and quickly to see this 1/3.... Are a lot of rules wich probably need a clarification but this.
This is what you wrote: For a piece of scenery to be considered a valid Cover, it must conceal at least a third of the target. This is what's in the rules: 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. See how much longer the second sentence is than the first one? Those facts.
Apart from the second sentence does not change the requirements of the first. If you only have 1/9 (1/3 hight, 1/3 width) you do not satisfy the first sentence.
Ok. I don't think it was necessary to copy every word of the "wiki" or "the rulebook" to make an argument. The rest of the paragraph don't denies in some way the first sentence, only clarifies it. The rule is well explained.
I think it does. Covering the third of a rectangle is not the same as covering one third of it's width AND one third of it's height. If something covers EITHER one third of it's width, then one third of the whole area is covered. But if I cover one third of it's width, then it also means, the total of the height is covered for that strip. And this contradicts with the second part, which says only the third of the height needs to be covered. If I cover both the width and height's one third, I either cover 1/9 of the whole area (if I cover one third of the one third), or 5/9 of the whole area (If I cover one third width fully and one third height full). See above for pictures. That's my point, the second part says "this means", but it doesn't mean the same, it means something different.
Yes and No. I can't be bothered to make a pretty picture this time, so text version! Here's a model ||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| Here's two examples of a model with 1/3 covered in terrain (red). Do either of these satisfy the second sentence? |||||||||_____||||||||| |||||||||_____||||||||| |||||||||_____||||||||| |||||||||_____||||||||| |||||||||_____||||||||| |||||||||_____||||||||| Likewise two more examples with 1/3 covered in terrain (red). Do either of these satisfy the second sentence? |||||||||_____||||||||| |||||||||_____||||||||| |||||||||_____||||||||| |||||||||_____||||||||| |||||||||_____||||||||| |||||||||_____||||||||| In both cases the width of terrain on the left hand side is NOT 1/3 or more of the model, however for the right hand side it is. Yes, english is a dumb language. But the above example is what the second sentence is talking about.
Too bad, the previous pictures were perfect! I'm not sure, you cover the 1/3 of the area, just not in a continuous part. But there were no requirement for it being continuous. But my problem isn't about continuity, just the amount of area covered. OOO OOO OOX X is in cover, O is not. This satisfies the second part. Is it in cover? There's a line, where one third of the width is covered. Also there's a line where one third of the height is covered. It still seems odd. I'd say no. But the "this means" part means the first and second parts of the statement means the very same. So how can I not be in cover, if I satisfy the second part? If this lone X doesn't satisfy the second part, what should? OOO OOO XXX One third is covered, seems we are done here. But the height is covered the exact same way as in first, so how isn't the first not in cover? I'm running circles. I should stop.
That's the thing, the paragraph is only talking about a (single) piece of scenery. It isn't describing how a model can claim cover from scenery, but stating how a (single) piece of scenery provides cover to a model. So whilst in both left hand cases a third of the model in all dimensions is covered by scenery, neither pieces of scenery cover 1/3 or more of the model in either left hand case.
Cannot be clearer than this! This is the demonstration that the rule is poorly written. Very very very poorly written. Nothing to be ashamed anyway. Just admit that and go with a rewrite and we'll be all proud of you CB. Mask
