The rules say it has to be a single piece of scenery that conceals a third of the model. "For a piece of scenery to be valid it must conceal". So, if those are two containers, no cover. If this is like a gate of a single piece of scenery, you get cover. 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. 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. » When in doubt, check the Silhouette (S) attribute of the target and its Silhouette Template to see the measurements of that minimum height and width. » The troop must be able to see, at least, a part of the volume of its target with the size of the target’s head, or a minimum size of approximately 3x3mm (the size of the black squares on the Silhouette Templates). EFFECTS » The trooper that declared a BS Attack must apply a -3 MOD to its BS Attribute. » The target of the BS Attack can apply a +3 MOD to its ARM/ BTS Attribute in any possible subsequent ARM/BTS Rolls.
@Nuada Airgetlam you are correct, but no one actually plays like that. There is a widely used houserule that goes something like this: “A corner always breaks palisades into smaller terrain pieces. A trooper can combine multiple pieces of terrain to fulfill partial cover requirements”.
Can't say I've met people playing it like that but it makes sense if the assumed base premise is "hide 1/3rd of the silhouette and touch the scenery to get cover". Especially when you touch both sides. It's not the exact RAW, but it's definitely a sensible RAI.
@Nuada Airgetlam So in your meta corners don’t always break palisades/walls/parapets and/or troopers can’t combine multiple palisades/walls/parapets to fullfill partial cover requirements?
I'm strongly opposed to any interpretation that says that adding more intervening terrain can remove cover.
Oh, good example. Although this one does not bother me quite as much, and I'd be fine with "no cover". I think it depends heavily on what cover actually represents. My understating is that minis are not static, they move within the surface represented by their base. When a model abuts the corner of a wall, it actively uses it at cover, hiding completely by standing straight but leaning out regularly to observe and shoot. The "one third" rule is there to represent the space necessary for the mini to completely hide its silhouette when standing straight. In your example, the model there has no space on either side for the model to properly lean in and hide behind any of those walls; it's merely standing in front of the gap, and probably toast in short order. The first example, however, is just silly, but that can be easily corrected in a FAQ and N4.
What you're arguing here appears to be that smoke grenades can be used to remove cover from models fairly arbitrarily.
I thought you were saying that if you can't draw LoF to the piece of terrain that the model is in base contact with, it can't grant cover.
Actually, yeah. I mean, he's not arguing it SHOULD work like that, just wondering if the rules as written could imply that.
In your picture? You say that the front rectangle is obscuring, and the rear rectangle is BtB, therefore there is no cover. Unless I'm completely misreading what you were trying to say, it sounds like you're suggesting that the front rectangle would have to be removed in order for the rear rectangle to be able to check both boxes.
@toadchild Guess it’s my usage of language then. When I write ‘obscured’ I’m using it as an umbrella term for when CB use the words ‘covers’ and ‘conceal’ the model partially. If that makes sense.
I don’t see how that picture shows that in any way when it follows the rules completely. not to shift blame or anything but I think Ian’s post was a response to when the waters got muddied by talking about a TAG now not being able to draw LOF to what gave a model cover, thus denying the cover.
No, it was in response to your post as well, because you appeared to be claiming that the intervening terrain stopped the target being obscured by what they were touching.
Aaahhh.. now I see what you mean. No, it’s just you and @ijw that don’t understand the question by the OP, perhaps due to his drawing not being more precise. This is what he means: Model A is clearly obscured and B can barely see him, but it doesn't matter shit because A is not in base contact with that massive building that obscures him, because it's not the current building he's in base contact with that covers his base.
