Random LoS/Cover Questions (With Diagrams!)

[Hatchethead]

Three questions:

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m232/dfleach/blockingwithin1inch-1.jpg

Top down perspective.

Sorry, assume the wall is Ht 3 and the models are both Ht 2. I should have included that in the diagram.

1. Does the defender in this image have hard cover? The attacker is within 1" of the terrain piece granting the cover w/ the blocking trait (the entire wall section is on a single base). According to page 15, does this not rob the defender of cover?

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m232/dfleach/losoverintervening1.jpg

Perspective change, now from the side. Sorry. Looking at it now, I realize I should have made the "models" a different shape, not circles/ovals. Confusing. My bad.

Anyhow:

2. According to page 15, despite the positioning of the models and the reality of their respective lines of sight, the Ht 3 model has partial LoS to the Ht 1 model behind the Ht 2 wall (and vice versa) as the Ht 3 model is taller than the wall. Correct?

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m232/dfleach/losoverintervening2.jpg

Same perspective as the previous diagram. Similar question.

3. Does the model on the flat elevation have partial LoS to the model behind the wall (and vice versa)? Since a Ht 1 model on Ht 2 elevation becomes effective Ht 3, making it taller than the wall (which is Ht 2), does this then allow it to draw obstructed LoS despite the placement of the target model, the distance between them, and the Ht of the target with relation to the obstruction? Page 15 seems to indicate yes. Because LoS is reciprocal at all times, the same question can be posed in reverse, granting the model behind the wall partial LoS to the model on elevation.

If I'm off base on any of my conclusions, please let me know. I want to be 110% sure that I grasp these concepts before continuing to inject my tainted knowledge into the beating heart of the local Malifaux community. :rolleyes:

Thanks for looking!

[Hatchethead]

No love?

/single tear

/continues polishing bifurcating saw

[Ratty]

Yep, with the rules in the rules manual.

1. You can't trace a line from all parts of the Attackers base to the Defenders base as there is a wall in the way so it gets covered.

2. the Ht3 model can see the Ht1 one.

3. The Ht1 model counts as Ht3 as it's on a higher elevation so can see the H1 model.

[Hatchethead]

Thanks Ratty.

Page 15 is pretty clear, but I'm glad for the confirmation. Some players in my group have a beef with the Ht 1 model behind the Ht 2 wall (diagrams 2 and 3) drawing LoS to models on the other side with the reciprocal "LoS is not 'one-way'" rule.

Diagram 1 is so stupid, I realize. Barring that nonsense, when DOES the "model within 1" of an intervening base with the blocking trait may ignore any cover it would provide" rule come into play? It makes sense for models on either side of a low wall, for instance.

[sephiroa]

Yep, with the rules in the rules manual.

1. You can't trace a line from all parts of the Attackers base to the Defenders base as there is a wall in the way so it gets covered.

2. the Ht3 model can see the Ht1 one.

3. The Ht1 model counts as Ht3 as it's on a higher elevation so can see the H1 model.

1) i agree

2) does this mean the shadow rule doesn't apply? or am I missing something?

3) same question,,

[Ratty]

Diagram 1 is so stupid, I realize. Barring that nonsense, when DOES the "model within 1" of an intervening base with the blocking trait may ignore any cover it would provide" rule come into play? It makes sense for models on either side of a low wall, for instance.Imagine you had an attacker standing directly behind a 1" wall and a defender 5" away. There is intervening terrain between them. But the attacker would ignore it as he is within 1" of it. If the defender shot back however the original attacker would get cover from the wall as it's not within 1" of the defender.

http://nezumi.me.uk/Malifaux/target.jpg

Green could fire at Red without it getting cover, but Green would get cover if Red fires back.

[Ratty]

1) i agree

2) does this mean the shadow rule doesn't apply? or am I missing something?

3) same question,,

Shadow rule applies to flat elevations, a wall is not a flat elevation.

[Hatchethead]

Imagine you had an attacker standing directly behind a 1" wall and a defender 5" away. There is intervening terrain between them. But the attacker would ignore it as he is within 1" of it. If the defender shot back however the original attacker would get cover from the wall as it's not within 1" of the defender.

http://nezumi.me.uk/Malifaux/target.jpg

Green could fire at Red without it getting cover, but Green would get cover if Red fires back.
Doesn't that hold true without the additional rule? I mean, red wouldn't get cover regardless because he's 5" from the wall base (he needs to be within 1" to claim cover). Right?

It makes sense if both red and green are within 1" of the same wall, on either side. Ignoring cover would almost be common sense at that point.

[sephiroa]

Shadow rule applies to flat elevations, a wall is not a flat elevation.

ooh allright :)

[sephiroa]

Doesn't that hold true without the additional rule? I mean, red wouldn't get cover regardless because he's 5" from the wall base (he needs to be within 1" to claim cover). Right?

It makes sense if both red and green are within 1" of the same wall, on either side. Ignoring cover would almost be common sense at that point.

he doesn't have to be within 1inch i think

lets say they are standing 5 inch from eachother, and in the middle is a wall ht1, i think they both get cover, (or am i missing something again??)

[Ratty]

Doesn't that hold true without the additional rule? I mean, red wouldn't get cover regardless because he's 5" from the wall base (he needs to be within 1" to claim cover). Right?

It makes sense if both red and green are within 1" of the same wall, on either side. Ignoring cover would almost be common sense at that point.

Very true. I think the trick with terrain is to use a bit of common sense. I don't think it would be sensible to say that a model at one corner of a 6" x 6" tower could ignore cover given to a model hiding behind another corner, just because he's within 1" of the tower. But two gunfighters either side of a crate I could understand it for.

[Hatchethead]

Common sense and wargamers? Oil and water!

But yeah I agree, though this might be a case of house rule and apply directly to face. Add a clause wherein each model must to be no more than 1" from same obstruction AND within 2" or maybe 3" of one another in order justify ignoring the cover. Simply sharing the same terrain to cancel cover without a distance restriction can result in oddness (without the proper application of commonsensicals).