• 0
Zewrath

Clarification on partial cover.

Question

So here's the full rules and requirements for being eligible for partial 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.
  • When drawing LoF, the attacker must be able to see at least a part of his target the size of its head, approximately 3mm by 3mm (the size of the black squares on 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.


So does Fusilier A have cover in Example 1 & 2 from Fusilier B?

Example 1 is a fusilier standing up on top of a flat building were he normally wouldn't get cover, due to him not being prone but in this situation, fusilier B is so close and shoots from such an angle that fusilier A is cover by way more than a third and he is touching the scenery that obscures him, so can he get cover? 

Example 2 is were fusilier A is heavily obscured by the object in from of him, the scenery is oddly shaped and is a whole piece so the sloped part (the part he is touching) doesn't actually obscure him enough to claim cover, however, he is obscured the scenery as a whole, and due to the angle of the shot and fusilier A is touching the scenery he also gets cover? 

Thank you in advance for the answer(s)! 

Example 1.png

Example 2.png

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 answers to this question

  • 0

This has come up in other rules threads before. Unfortunately it depends on your definition of "a piece of scenery". Consider the paper box terrain piece that comes with operation icestorm. If you stand on it, but aren't in case contact with the lip of the wall around the top of the box, are you still in base contact with that piece of scenery? Or do you need to be up against the lip of the top wall to be in "cover". I don't really think it was ever resolved. Question is a valid one imo.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

For what it's worth, the most consistent way to play it is that the piece of terrain has to be at least a third of the trooper's height from the bottom of the trooper's base. This puts the trooper in example 1 in base contact with scenery thats of zero height.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@Zewrath Example 1: Yes,  Partial Cover. More than 1/3rd of the Silhouette is blocked by the Roof which is a legit piece of Scenery.

Example 2:  

edit: nevermind.

 

Not arguing this makes any sense, just judging things according to how the rules are written.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 minutes ago, Teslarod said:

@Zewrath Example 1: Yes,  Partial Cover. More than 1/3rd of the Silhouette is blocked by the Roof which is a legit piece of Scenery.

Example 2: No, not in BTB to the Piece of Scenery obstructing LOF.

 

Not arguing this makes any sense, just judging things according to how the rules are written.

He IS in base contact with the scenery. As stated though, the scenery is oddly shaped. This came once ago when a club had homemade terrain with solid organic shaped huts, there was this one thing sticking out of the building that didn't really provide that much cover, wich the trooper was touching, but the building itself blocked more than half the LoF due to angle.

So he is more than one third covered and he was touching that weird slope that stuck out of the building, which was entirely part of the building and shaped with it. It just looked totally weird at a glance but I feel like there's an argument, that he had partial cover by RAW, I coulis be entirely wrong though.

 

25 minutes ago, IJW Wartrader said:

For what it's worth, the most consistent way to play it is that the piece of terrain has to be at least a third of the trooper's height from the bottom of the trooper's base. This puts the trooper in example 1 in base contact with scenery thats of zero height.

So you're saying example 1 doesn't have cover then? Just asking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yes, that's what I'm saying. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hmm.. I can sort of see the argument but I still feel like it's up for debate, I just don't quite know how to approach a counter argument. How about example 2? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm not seeing anything that would stop A2 getting Partial Cover.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Example 2 is one of those awkward cases where the best thing is to decide with your opponent before deployment IMO. 

In a tournament whoever sets the table up should decide and put it in the table notes. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 minutes ago, Col said:

Example 2 is one of those awkward cases where the best thing is to decide with your opponent before deployment IMO. 

In a tournament whoever sets the table up should decide and put it in the table notes. 

Unfortunately this came up during a tournament and none of us spotted it before the game started. I think I ended up getting cover because I cited the partial cover requirements. Still, I could empathize with why my opponent felt it was totally weird looking. Sadly one of those things that can happen when you deal with terrain that isn't purpose build to Infinity. :/

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
31 minutes ago, Zewrath said:

Unfortunately this came up during a tournament and none of us spotted it before the game started. I think I ended up getting cover because I cited the partial cover requirements. Still, I could empathize with why my opponent felt it was totally weird looking. Sadly one of those things that can happen when you deal with terrain that isn't purpose build to Infinity. :/

Hopefully the TO/table owner will note that piece of terrain in future. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@Zewrath  somehow ended up looking at trooper B2's base instead of the indicated grey Silhouette. You were also talking about trooper A2 - who technically gets Cover. Whoops.

 

@IJW Wartrader

Scenery Buildings: Roofs

Unless specified to the contrary, the roof of a Scenery Structure will correspond with the Type of Construction indicated in its Scenery Building Profile.

http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Scenery_Building_Profile

Roofs are listed as Scenery, why wouldn't they provide Partial Cover against attacks from below?

10 hours ago, Zewrath said:

 

Example 1.png

That's easy 1/3 Obstructed LOF to A's Silhouette by Scenery. 

 

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. - check
  • For a piece of scenery to be considered a valid Cover, it must conceal at least a third of the target. - check This means that it must have a height that is equal to or higher than one third of the target's height- oh boy and must also cover at least the equivalent of one third of its base. - check
  • 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.
  • When drawing LoF, the attacker must be able to see at least a part of his target the size of its head, approximately 3mm by 3mm (the size of the black squares on Silhouette Templates).

Interesting part is the second Requirement:

'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.'

Does the second part contain additional requirements or is it an attempt to elaborate the first part? One could make a case CB simply forgot for a bit about elevetion when writing the latter part.

The part marked in orange is what prevents a roof from providing Partial Cover. because a roof is unable to be 1/3rd of a trooper's height.

The part marked in blue is what prevents i.e. a signpost like below from providing Partial Cover, because it's unable to cover 1/3 of the base. This could cause problems with a lot of things - cars, signs and benches come to mind. 

500_F_33314315_83WKz2mUcCgIIKesI0Bya5HhS
 

If that is intentional, no complaints. Just pretty sure CB intended at least cars to provide Partial Cover.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@Teslarod do you mean to say that, by extension, you can not land with an AD3+ trooper on any building, platform or other regardless of whether the area is clear or not? (Because they are scenery)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Treating the roof of a building as scenery causes even more problems when you look at how the landing aid trait interacts with AD.

It's generally best to treat the flat portions of a building's roof as not being scenery, meaning you can only claim partial cover if prone regardless of how much of a silhouette they obscure; but treating any additional aspects (lips, walls etc.), even though they are attached, as separate, individual items of scenery able to provide cover if they meet the requirements.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
43 minutes ago, Mahtamori said:

@Teslarod do you mean to say that, by extension, you can not land with an AD3+ trooper on any building, platform or other regardless of whether the area is clear or not? (Because they are scenery)

Hm not sure

  • Any horizontal flat surface the size of a Circular Template and free of scenery elements may be chosen as the Drop Zone.

Think the highlighting is off, should be 'free of scenery elements' marked in bold, so basically scatter. As long as you're able to fit the template the flat surface requirement should be enough to allow roofs. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

But if you treat the building as a scenery item, and not scenery element, do you mean AD3 can stick the template down as if the building is not there (potentially landing indoors or in an empty 2" wide alley between two buildings) or do you mean that whether a building is scenery or not depends on perspective?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just now, Mahtamori said:

But if you treat the building as a scenery item, and not scenery element, do you mean AD3 can stick the template down as if the building is not there (potentially landing indoors or in an empty 2" wide alley between two buildings) or do you mean that whether a building is scenery or not depends on perspective?

Nah, a partial building beneath the template should clearly not qualify as horizontal flat surface.

Flat surface rules out slopes though. Basically if you can place a template with full contact to the surface you want to use AD on, then it's fine.

Technically troops an Markers are okay to be in the way. Neither Silhouettes nor Markers should impact physical surface area. Seems to be pretty important in Objective missions depending on if you're using actual scenery or markers - makes a big difference in for Transmission Matrix and similar things.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, Teslarod said:

'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.'

...

The part marked in blue is what prevents i.e. a signpost like below from providing Partial Cover, because it's unable to cover 1/3 of the base. This could cause problems with a lot of things - cars, signs and benches come to mind.

it does not say that a scenerey structure has to cover 1/3 of THE base...it's the EQUIVALENT of one third of it's base. Thats a huge difference!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 minutes ago, Sergej Faehrlich said:

it does not say that a scenerey structure has to cover 1/3 of THE base...it's the EQUIVALENT of one third of it's base. Thats a huge difference!

Fair enough. Honestly I'm not even sure what '1/3 of the base' is supposed to mean exactly. If it's not literally refereing to the base itself, which means the S0 part of the Silhouette, then I have no idea what this part of the rule is supposed to do.

We already have the first part doing pretty much the same thing:

   For a piece of scenery to be considered a valid Cover, it must conceal at least a third of the target

Wouldn't be surprised by now if  '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' can be ignored depending on circumstances. As of now I'm just wondering what they're there for.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The scenery has to be at least a third of both the width and the height of the Silhouette.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, IJW Wartrader said:

The scenery has to be at least a third of both the width and the height of the Silhouette.

Yea, that's how it reads to me. No taking cover behind a sign post.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, IJW Wartrader said:

The scenery has to be at least a third of both the width and the height of the Silhouette.

Would you care to elaborate what you mean with that?

 

Because there are three 'subconditions' listed in that one condition and I was wondering if the first one is the 'main condition' or if it is required to fullfill all of them.

For a piece of scenery to be considered a valid Cover, it must conceal at least a third of the target - seems safe to say this is refering to the Silhouette

This means that it must have a height that is equal to or higher than one third of the target's height - heavily implies that the scenery has to have a vertical portion

an must also cover at least the equivalent of one third of its base - equivalent of 'one third of it's base' is an odd choice of words here. Base is most likely the S0 Silhouette for the troop's Profile. But how would that not be covered by 'conceal at least a third of the target' already?

Approaching things from a geometrical point of view makes it pretty confusing why up and downward LOF angles behave different than those to the left or right.

The a building's corner grants cover. Now imagine the same situation in a zero gravity environment where everything is flipped by 90°. Pretty sure the amount of LOF blocked by scenery is exactly the same, but the same wall that was vertical before is now horizontal and doesn't grant cover anymore (technically). - doesn't make any sense.

Rules are rules, so don't always have to make perfect sense. That one seems to make things unneccessary complicated though, 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think the second and third conditions are both required to fulfill the first.

There seems to be a terminology issue in the N3 rules. 

As written, I think you are right that it's reasonable to interpret "base" as literally the model's base. It seems one could also interpret "base" to mean "S0" template. 

If we assume "base" means "width of the template," is it possible to satisfy concealing 1/3 of the target without being at least 1/3 the height and 1/3 the width of the template? I could figure that out, but it's late and time to put the kids to bed 😉.

If that's impossible, then the language is probably just redundant, and creates an unintentional problem of scenery with gaps exposing a model's literal base. If not, then interpreting "base" as "width of the template" would seem to make sense. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Teslarod said:

n must also cover at least the equivalent of one third of its base - equivalent of 'one third of it's base' is an odd choice of words here. Base is most likely the S0 Silhouette for the troop's Profile. But how would that not be covered by 'conceal at least a third of the target' already?

To me, that clause seem to answer how to horizontally measure a third obscure when dealing with vertical scenery. Such as when next to a wall corner. You must cover a third side-way, and a third of the air volume is impossible to see, but a third of the base, which is the exact width of the silhouette is achievable.

So the rule as I parse it is " For a piece of scenery to be considered a valid Cover, it must (actual rule here). This means* that (example of one axis) and must also (example of the other axis). "

*the term "this mean" is most often used, from what I've seen, to explain more precisely the meanings, trough example or logical steps/conclusions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
11 hours ago, weeble1000 said:

Yea, that's how it reads to me. No taking cover behind a sign post.

Well, technically an elevated piece of terrain that leaves your legs exposed could still be able to "conceal and equivalent of one-third of the base" depending ion how we understand "equivalent". Some of those possible meanings may be simply redundant - if you read this as equivalent volume, for example, because with base being a part of silhouette, anything that conceals 1/3 of the silhouette also conceals a volume of 1/3 of said silhouette's part. If it's a shape/projection equivalent, then it's a separate requirement that may or may not be fulfilled even if 1/3 of your silhouette is concealed (imagine a grate with thin beams and spaces between them twice as wide as beams' thickness; well, and a 3x3mm hole there somewhere so you could claim a LoF).

Of course, we have received an answer on intention. But I feel that wording is a bit weird.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

My understanding with respect to the 1/3 of the base is in the case of a corner of a building. A model may be in base contact with a building, meets a lot of the conditions, but due to the angles, etc, cover is not afforded from attacks if less that 1/3 of the base is behind said cover. 

Had as an instance of this a week ago where I had neglected to have the required amount of a model behind a corner due to the weapon preventing base contact. So placed the model in base contact, however it was now poking out around the corner. 

At the end of the day, if you and your opponent can’t agree on whether or not cover is afforded, leave it up to the dice (odds vs evens) or toss a coin and go from there. Keep the game moving. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now