This is probably a local meta question more than a rules question... Does a single piece building count as single a “piece of scenery” when checking partial cover requirements? Trooper gains partial cover, even the if the contacted vertical surface (building rail) is behind him, assuming that the rest of the building blocks 33% of the volume?
@toadchild this might be easier to explain with pictures... The single piece building is “designed for infinity” and has a roof with a rail on each side (operation: icestorm terrain). The trooper is standing on a corner and in contact with rails A an B and not contact with rails C and D. Enemy trooper shoots our hero from different directions. When does he benefit from partial cover? Q1: Attacker is on a same level. Rail A conceals 17% and B conceals 17%. Q2: Attacker is on a same level. Rail A conceals 1%. Rail C conceals 33%. Q3: Attacker is on a lower level. Rail A conceals 1%. Rail C (and floor) conceals 90%. Q4: Attacker is on a same level. Rail C conceals 34%.
Q1: Yes. In contact with item giving cover. Q2: No. Not in contact with item giving cover (C) Q3: No. Not in contact with item giving cover (C) and to get cover because you are in an elevated position you need to be prone. Q4: No. See Q2.
Are you sure about Q1? The partial cover rules speak about “piece of scenery” not “pieces of scenery”. If building rails are indeed separate pieces, the trooper wouldn’t get partial cover. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Cover What’s more, multiple ”pieces of scenery” are mentioned in total cover requirements.
Once upon a time, back during 2nd edition, Corvus Belli had a series of introductory videos for Infinity. One of those videos was a demonstration of cover, in this exact sort of situation. A trooper standing on the ground, shooting at a trooper standing on top of a building. The trooper on the top of the building received no cover until it was in base contact with the parapet. -- As far as handling the parapets as separate terrain pieces even though they're physically joined to the rest of the building, it's also important for situations like climbing up the building. The parapet is an obstacle with a height equal to however far it sticks up above the roof, so that models can vault over it; instead of being an however many inch tall wall that no one can.
Ah, I remembered where I saved the photos from that video. As far as I know, CB's never changed their mind concerning this distinction.
Unfortunately, the linked pictures didn’t solve the issue. To recap, the issues are: - Are connected parapets considered to be a single “piece of scenery”? if yes -> trooper touching parapet effectively gains partial cover against all attacks that originate outside of building. If no* -> trooper standing in a corner touching two connected parapets doesn’t get partial cover. - Is there a maximum length for a single piece of scenery? The way I see it, the longer the scenery piece is, the better it provides partial cover. - If corners split parapet into smaller parts, how do you play circular parapets? * for no apparent reason corners split single piece scenery items to multiple smaller scenery items.
If you want to extreme RAW it then sure you could come to those conclusions but you will not find anyone who actually plays like that. The circle one are the only one where you have to make potentially arbitrary distinction on where cover starts and ends, specially as the size of the circle could impact the decision. As a general rule I would suggest 90 degrees angle of the point of contact be point where you switch from cover to no cover.
@Mcgreag What is Rules-As-Intended in this case? How parapets or any “piece of scenery” are supposed to work in regards to partial cover? It would be trivial to release an errata I mean FAQ that addresses this issue.
Is the piece of terrain thing blocking LOS to your Silhouette between you and your target? Is your target in BtB with it? This means the actual parapet/railings/whatever, not the bulk of the building.
In the end, whether cover is valid or not comes down to one (sometimes two) things. 1. If you and your opponent agree that it's valid, it's valid 2. If you're at a tournament and the TO says it's valid, it's valid Infinity is a game where both players need to be able to maturely and fairly agree on things. Being able to take cover by jamming yourself into a parapet corner makes sense, and so that's how people will play it - being able to take cover when you're being shot from behind just because you're touching part of the building as a whole doesn't make sense, and so people aren't going to play it that way. This isn't warhammer - the game isn't about exploiting the rules as optimally as possible in order to mercilessly crush your opponent. If you're playing against someone who is trying to game the system, then you're unfortunately just not going to have a good time; On the plus side, players like that get reputations quickly and people will just stop giving them games.
@Spinnaker if that is the way how CB wants us to play infinity, it’s very easy to fix. Just release FAQ where partial cover can be gained by contacting multiple pieces of scenery. There is no reason not to do this because people want to play this way. “Corners break a parapet”, other houserules and terrain functionality should be agreed upon at the beginning of the game.
CB aren't going to release strict rules on scenery because it can do varied and that might limit how it gets designed and built. If it helps, building tops are normally considered flat terrain (like for airdrops) and only protrusions and the walls are considered scenery. It's not explicit but based on that our group generally consider vertical it near vertical obstructions for cover. In which case you need to be in base to base with it
I understand your view, I'm just warning you that that's not how people are going to play it - literally everyone, including TOs at CB organised tournaments and CB themselves when they demo the game plays it the way I described. Like @Alphz said, if scenery rules start getting tightly defined then everyone is going to have to start building their tables to fit those tight defenitions - simply allowing players to play it as they see it allows for vastly more variety.
Look, to be frank, CB doesn't give a damn how you want to play Infinity, especially concerning terrain. What they expect is that you, along with whoever you're playing with, are going to look at your scenery, and then decide how to divide or categorize terrain pieces so that they make sense to your group. Corvus Belli does not employ ITS tournament police. Corvus Belli does not employ scenery police. And that's how pretty much every miniature game company deals with scenery, at least the ones that don't mandate every single element of the scenery. All they can do is provide you guidelines and expect you to figure out what you think is going to be reasonable. Is that stack of barrels that you have a solid piece of terrain, or something that you're using to represent a difficult terrain zone? That's a decision that the players involved with that particular game have to decide. Similar situations for trees, forests, and railings. I will say that I think one of the common "argument avoidance" interpretations of the cover rules is that if you're in base-to-base contact with multiple scenery pieces, it's acceptable for them to add up to "cover". If you use that interpretation, then you can just divide the railings at the corners, and they work in a manner that's going to feel reasonable to most people.
The cover rules are already fairly strict, but it's ambiguous as to how far away from the trooper you consider. Personally I'd say you should only consider the 1/3rd high or 1/3rd wide criteria within one silhouette volume, that is to say to be in contact with something that can reasonably provide cover and then consider the silhouette area covered using any terrain that's within one silhouette/base and that breaks LOF to target. This way a loose pile of boxes can provide cover and a huge sprawling building complex doesn't get weird regarding how the cover is applied.