I would say no, but it's a bit difficult to tell from the diagram. It's how much the piece of terrain that the model is in BTB with obscures that counts so you'd need to drag the line through the intervening terrain to evaluate.
Rule of thumb, you have to meet both these criteria in order to get partial cover: Is the model obscured? Is the model in B2B with the object that obscures the model? If yes to both, then you have cover. If no to one or both, then you do not.
So i have a question - does a piece of terrain counts as "obscuring" if it is hidden behind other piece of terrain?
There is a situation where left box is covering a model (it satisfies all requirements), and then we add 2-nd container which totally blocks LOS to the the actional container, still allow shooter to see his target and NOT in BtB with target)
It's easier to show what I mean, rather than trying to explain it through text and talk past each other.
Just for sake of completion. Grey represents the line where the infantry would lose cover versus the TAG. Even though the TAG does not see the cover that the infantry is hiding behind, the infantry is still obscured by 1/3 or more by what they are behind. To reinforce your argument you could always argue absurdity. Take the next image where the blue infantry is in base contact with something that is behind them while being obscured by something that they are not in base to base with. I don't think anyone would agree that constitutes cover, yet it's got the same dynamic as in the original post and it's hard to formulate an argument that mechanically meshes with both the rules interpretation and but not both situations.
Isn't there an issue here that makes this interpretation of the cover rules similar to what made super-jump backshooting such a problem? By this logic (unless I've misunderstood), if a model is standing directly behind a low wall that obscures two-thirds of its volume, but you advance forward over an elevated rooftop so that you can only see the model's head, that would meet your criteria for not allowing cover. (For clarity, I'm operating off the assumption from the OP and follow-up post that the intention of the original diagram was that the cover the model is in B2B with would be sufficient to obscure if the secondary obscuring element was removed - I agree with your interpretation if the piece he's in B2B with does not obscure, which I think on re-reading might be what you're getting at above but isn't what the OP asked about, hence my confusion)
Really? Have we found again a situation, which is complete clear and somebody tries to f*** the rules?
Um, I don't get it. Once I removed (sorry for even crappier Paint job :P) the container closer to the TAG then the S2 model is still obscured in at least 1/3rd of silhouette (per gray line) and touches the building that obscures him in 1/3rd. He has cover. Why would it matter that in this scenario below there is an additional building that hides the other building? The TAG building doesn't even obscure the S2 any additional amount. It does not seem to be relevant aside from providing cover to the TAG.
i'm with @Zewrath on this one. What you're touching has to be what's obscuring. None of this "oh, but if I remove a bunch of scenery from the table..." bullcrap. Coz you know what that means right? It sets a precedent for people to screw with scenery WHILE the game is being played. All. The. Time. So no. Just follow the rules please. This isn't some sort of grey or counter-intuitive area.
Crappy MS Paint is what the internet was originally intended for. It matters because of what @Zewrath wrote and how @WarHound reacted, there's inherent confusion because of how difficult it is to describe with words. A model shouldn't lose cover just because the shooter picks a spot to shoot from where they conveniently do not see the cover. So; whether the intervening piece of terrain is there or not shouldn't matter to the infantryman getting shot by the TAG in terms of them claiming cover, only the terrain piece that they are trying to cover behind matters. As Zewrath described it I, at least, perceived a loophole in his explanation where someone (let's face it, a rules lawyer) would say "oh, but I can't see your cover, therefore it is invalid". Imagine a miniature taking cover behind a half-S2 high iron dumpster with a label "SAND". Shoot at them and they get cover. Park a REM in front of the sand dumpster so you can't see the dumpster but still can draw LOF to the model and they suddenly can't claim cover because it's the REM obscuring them? Nuh uh. Still cover. (This is the most extreme example I can think of, and my shitty MS Paint skills aren't up for the task of creating a crappy MS Paint of it)
All I'm going to say is that in every other game that I've seen, the line of sight/cover rules spend a bit of effort to stress that lines of sight are drawn through everything, not stopping at the first obstacle. In other words, any particular line of sight may be blocked by multiple items. So this sounds more like the argument of someone who lacks experience with other rules, than anything else. If you've got a model standing touching a terrain piece, other obstacles don't matter for determining how much that terrain piece is obscuring.
Intervening scenery items, other than the scenery item the target is touching, are 100% irrelevant. You CANNOT remove someone's cover by not being able to see the cover. I can't think of the words to say how nonsensical that is.
It does seem pretty clear - to determine where a scenery items provides partial cover, pretend there's no other scenery on the table and ask whether the item in question blocks 1/3 of the model. What about this one: The unit is behind two walls separated by a small gap, and is in b2b with both of them. The two walls are different scenery items. Does the unit have cover from a unit to its north? Each of the two walls obscures only 1/4 of the model, but together they obscure 1/2 the model.
It is. It doesn't stop obscuring just because you obscured IT. Apparently it is and "follow the rules" means what ijw just said. The S2 gets cover regardless if you attempted to slice the pie so that you can't see the cover. You don't remove any piece of scenery to see that. Only the scenery in b2b with the target matters. Doing it your way would allow me to park a TAG in line of enemy's cover and say "he doesn't have cover, I can't see it". That's insane.
