Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
i was going to point out the LOS rules cover where Terrain can and can't act as cover, but BuShips beat me to it... Teach me to be out of the office yesterday.
A couple of BF EVO questions (NEW Qs 28th Mar 1749 UTC)
- Thread starter lastbesthope
- Start date
lastbesthope
Mongoose
BuShips said:
Yes but in the different categories of lione of sight, in some it references model to model sightlines. another ambiguity.
I'd like to add a 3rd question for an official answer.
3) When 'seeing through' cover, does the target get any defensive bonuses? A target within terrain may always claim Cover according to the rule sheet.
LBH
lastbesthope said:
Yes, it really has to be defined more clearly as to what is meant by "Line of Sight", as there are several kinds in the game it seems. In my mind, I'd like to see the terms CLOS, OLOS and BLOS be used maybe. A "Clear Line of Sight" is likened as using a string drawn from the centre of each of the firing models to the centre of what is called the Fire Zone, with no intervening terrain in that line. Then, you could have "Obscured Line of Sight" for any situation where that "string" is intersected by terrain, but which leaves a view of the model, however slight, still available to be taken under fire. Lastly, "Blocked Line of Sight" is where no part of the model, however slight, can be viewed and thus cannot be taken under fire. Does my method of then breaking LOS down into these parts help as a guide to understand at all? Understand that I haven't even played this out yet, but just in my mind's eye it makes sense. Cover would be just a further part of OLOS in that the target model has to be within or touching from behind the intervening terrain to qualify.
lastbesthope said:
I'm thinking here that Matt is just saying the "seeing through" text to break down whether the model is either viewable to target at all or so "deep in the woods" that it is blocked from view. I see his point well that being within the terrain like ruins or woods that the target can always claim Cover as in this case the terrain is under them as well as around them in a sense.
Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
My take on the rules for LOS and cover.
1. Impassable terrain blocks line of sight
2. Passable terrain provides cover
3. A unit can only see into or out of cover from a distance equal to its' size rating - beyond that it can't be seen at all.
The problem is that these points are kinda scattered throughout the rules.
1. Impassable terrain blocks line of sight
2. Passable terrain provides cover
3. A unit can only see into or out of cover from a distance equal to its' size rating - beyond that it can't be seen at all.
The problem is that these points are kinda scattered throughout the rules.
To my above comments, I'd like to contribute a fresh term and acronym that may assist in building up a guide for game usage. As a separate term that can be used with my LOS descriptions above, let me offer up the term "Field of View" (FOV) or perhaps "Field of Vision" (either is valid). In using FOV as an addition to LOS rules, you can describe what Matt is saying about moving from a Line of Sight perspective and into a view of the target model for consideration of targeting. Thus, a target model can be assessed for taking under fire from either LOS or FOV rules. In addition to qualifying under LOS, you can now use FOV to widen the terrain effects on shooting. The only difference between LOS and FOV is that while the firing model's measuring point still remains the center point of the model as in LOS, the FOV becomes a cone that fans out that can allow shooting that LOS would restrict or deny. This is what I can surmise from the discussions between Matt and Mr Evil with Matt's answers. The rules as written still make use of point to point measuring, but Matt is allowing with the Evolution rules a cone of fire that can target any viewable part of a model. So while using Mr Evil's photo above as an example, Matt is saying that the Field of View trumps the Line of Sight. Since the target model is in contact with the terrain, it can claim Cover. I'd like to see a slight change in this ruling because it would help with the experienced gamers in rationalising the shooting rules regarding terrain. I'd like to see Cover only applied using LOS along with the condition of being able to "tag" the terrain from behind it. I'm rather liking my term of "tagging" just now and will probably continue to use it in Evolution games :wink: as in "Hey, are you tagging that wall over there?" In my thinking of how to use Mr Evil's tank example, I'd say that while the model is being partially obscured in the FOV by the dragon terrain, the LOS is clear. I'd say that the model qualifies for Obscurement because the FOV is not 100% clear. Thus you could combine the "sight terms" and help to define shooting within terrain.
If the LOS to the target model and the FOV of the target model are both 100% unbroken, then the terrain to the target model is Clear.
If the LOS to the model is unbroken but the FOV is masked even 1%, then the terrain Obscures the target model, even if it is in contact with the terrain.
If the LOS to the target model is broken (thus breaking the FOV as well) but the model in not in contact with the terrain and also behind it from the POV of the firing model, the terrain Obscures the target model.
If the LOS to the target model is broken (thus breaking the FOV as well) but the model is in contact with the terrain and is also behind it from the POV of the firing model, the terrain offers the target model Cover. Additionally, if the target model is inside of terrain (such as ruins or woods) it can always claim Cover.
If the LOS to the target model and the FOV of the target model are both 100% masked, then the terrain to the target model is Blocked.
The only difference in my definitions is that in Mr Evil's examples, both targets would be Obscured. I've just tried to add some helpful terms alongside LOS. I've already tossed in "POV" (Point of View of course, but in this case I'm not meaning 'opinion'). Another acronym as long as I'm at it would be DOF (for Depth of Field), as Matt is really using that in helping to define Cover terrain. I'm surprised that I don't have a headache, but really writing this up is helping me to think this over and make sense of it.
My contribution would not really drastically change the game or the rules as written, but just add a little "tweak" to those rules that would make the game just as playable as Matt (&Co.) has intended but at the same time "suck in" the Cover rules to a more sensible usage. Clear descriptions can be made in the game thus with my suggestion of using POV, FOV LOS and even DOF. BTW, this makes me ask, "Does this make any sense to any of you?" I'm genuinely curious. :wink:
If the LOS to the target model and the FOV of the target model are both 100% unbroken, then the terrain to the target model is Clear.
If the LOS to the model is unbroken but the FOV is masked even 1%, then the terrain Obscures the target model, even if it is in contact with the terrain.
If the LOS to the target model is broken (thus breaking the FOV as well) but the model in not in contact with the terrain and also behind it from the POV of the firing model, the terrain Obscures the target model.
If the LOS to the target model is broken (thus breaking the FOV as well) but the model is in contact with the terrain and is also behind it from the POV of the firing model, the terrain offers the target model Cover. Additionally, if the target model is inside of terrain (such as ruins or woods) it can always claim Cover.
If the LOS to the target model and the FOV of the target model are both 100% masked, then the terrain to the target model is Blocked.
The only difference in my definitions is that in Mr Evil's examples, both targets would be Obscured. I've just tried to add some helpful terms alongside LOS. I've already tossed in "POV" (Point of View of course, but in this case I'm not meaning 'opinion'). Another acronym as long as I'm at it would be DOF (for Depth of Field), as Matt is really using that in helping to define Cover terrain. I'm surprised that I don't have a headache, but really writing this up is helping me to think this over and make sense of it.
My contribution would not really drastically change the game or the rules as written, but just add a little "tweak" to those rules that would make the game just as playable as Matt (&Co.) has intended but at the same time "suck in" the Cover rules to a more sensible usage. Clear descriptions can be made in the game thus with my suggestion of using POV, FOV LOS and even DOF. BTW, this makes me ask, "Does this make any sense to any of you?" I'm genuinely curious. :wink:
lastbesthope
Mongoose
I think that rather than add new terms, we simply need to clarify the existing rules.
Can we maybe move the discussion of concepts to another thread? Maybe Evils Obscurement and cover thread. The Signal to Noise Ratio on this thread is getting a little low, makes it harder for Matthew to spot the questions. and let's face it, it's his rulings that count as the fficial ones.
LBH
Can we maybe move the discussion of concepts to another thread? Maybe Evils Obscurement and cover thread. The Signal to Noise Ratio on this thread is getting a little low, makes it harder for Matthew to spot the questions. and let's face it, it's his rulings that count as the fficial ones.
LBH
I'll probably copy and paste some of this over to that, heh. Thanks again and I hope you get your answers.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Summing up questions to make it easier for Matthew to find them when I PM him for clarification:
Also,
4) For the tournament, can both armies field a command squad?
5) Can a command squad grant a bonus action to a unit in your partner's army?
6) Can 2 Command squads grant their bonus actions to the same unit, giving it 4 actions (I think the answer to this will be no)
7) When exactly is the tourney, we're getting conflicting info between it being the 14th (Original date given and tourney pack download) and the 7th (Sign up thread)
Thanks
LBH
lastbesthope said:Matt,
Thanks for stopping by this thread again. As Buships has pointed out, the pertinent sections of the rules dealing with Impassable terrain and cover are from the Terrain and Cover sections of the rules.
BF Evo Rules : Terrain said:
BF Evo Rules : Terrain said:
BF Evo Rules: Cover said:
BF Evo Rules: Cover said:
The first quote from the Cover section seems to imply that impassable terrain, since it cannot be moved through, is ineligible to provide Cover on that basis.
Obviously you can't get a Cover bonus for being within impassable terrain as no model can be there.
And it has already been ruled that If a model is on the other side of, and touching, passable terrain so that part of the model is obscured from the view of the attacker, that model as the standard Cover bonus of +2 to it's Hit and Kill scores.
However, there is a possible ambiguity in the use of the word Cover to describe both terrain that can be moved through (and that grants a Cover bonus), and the state caused by a model being behind and touching terrain (Whether impassable or not??)
The questions I put to Matthew are therefore:
1) If a model is on the other side of, and touching, impassable terrain so that part of the model is obscured from the view of the attacker, would that model gain the Cover bonus of +2 to it's Hit and Kill scores?
2) Can you 'see through' impassable terrain to the same degree that you can 'see through' Cover?
Now whether or not this is cleared up in the Advanced rules, we need to know for those of us that are still waiting for it's release and are playing by the basic rules, and those players yet to come who may not bother buying the Advanced book.
Thanks for your answers, let's all wait for official ones, I think we fans have picked the bones of the rules to death by now
LBH
lastbesthope said:
Also,
4) For the tournament, can both armies field a command squad?
5) Can a command squad grant a bonus action to a unit in your partner's army?
6) Can 2 Command squads grant their bonus actions to the same unit, giving it 4 actions (I think the answer to this will be no)
7) When exactly is the tourney, we're getting conflicting info between it being the 14th (Original date given and tourney pack download) and the 7th (Sign up thread)
Thanks
LBH
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. It is in cover, so it gets the cover bonus. . .
4. Yes. What your opponent takes has nothing to do with you. . .
5. Yes.
6. And you guessed right. . .
7. The 7th.
2. Yes.
3. It is in cover, so it gets the cover bonus. . .
4. Yes. What your opponent takes has nothing to do with you. . .
5. Yes.
6. And you guessed right. . .
7. The 7th.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Well all the great Matt has spoken, I even tried to clarify #4, my badly worded question being unclear as to my intent, here's what I get for my trouble :lol:
It's only funny because it's true :lol:
Thanks for the answers MAtthew.
LBH
lastbesthope said:
msprange said:>>>I meant can both partnered armies take a Command squad, not opposing
>>>armies.
You see, I was automatically assuming your partner would be hostile to you
Matthew
It's only funny because it's true :lol:
Thanks for the answers MAtthew.
LBH
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Another question popped into my head today, OFFICIAL Mongoose answers only please, or direct proof from the rulesheet.
The rules state that models can block or obscure line of sight, but the rules also state that terrain provides cover, and terrain is explicitly stated to be anything on the table that isn't a model.
So, can soldiers take cover behind a tank or other large model?
LBH
The rules state that models can block or obscure line of sight, but the rules also state that terrain provides cover, and terrain is explicitly stated to be anything on the table that isn't a model.
So, can soldiers take cover behind a tank or other large model?
LBH
lastbesthope said:
Ooh, tricky question :wink:. Let me see. Under Fire Zones and Line of Sight it says: "...your unit must have a Line of Sight to the intended targets." Even if you intend to use a Fire Zone to target them with, according to the rules you must see the models in order to attack them. Also, in the same section, it says that "...you can only attack models completely or partially within this Fire Zone that are also within Line of Sight." As the three Line of Sight descriptions and the Cover description only refer to terrain and not to models, then your question really becomes is that MBT unit "transparent" or is it really a sort of "terrain"? Also, if it were answered that they could indeed hide behind the tank (using it as terrain for infantry) and thus block small arms fire, what if the weapon was a fragmentation weapon (grenade) that was centered in a Fire Zone behind those infantry? If the tank is deemed to be terrain under this condition, then it would disallow lobbing of a grenade behind the tank as the Fire Zone center point must still be within Line of Sight. I'm not really answering as much as seeing if I understand your question. Do I?
Rabidchild
Mongoose
I have a new question that I'll ask first and then go over LBH's question on taking cover behind a tank.
My question: Model A in cover shoots at model B in the open. Does model B gain obscurement from the cover that model A is in? Obscured says "Terrain interrupts Line of Sight but both models can still partially see one another. (that is, terrain hides part of the target model)."
My instinct is to say no, but if model A is edging out around the corner of a ruined building model B may be blocked by some part of the wall. We check LOS from the center of the model, does this mean height as well? Honestly it makes no sense to me that putting troops in a forest would give cover to everything they shot at, but the Rules As Written seems to confirm this.
Okay, moving on to LBH's question. From the rules: "However, models not in the same unit (as the shooting model) can block or obscure Line of Sight." The parenthesis were added by me for context. Seems pretty simple to me, any unit that is not part of the shooting unit may block or give obscurement, friend or enemy.
My question: Model A in cover shoots at model B in the open. Does model B gain obscurement from the cover that model A is in? Obscured says "Terrain interrupts Line of Sight but both models can still partially see one another. (that is, terrain hides part of the target model)."
My instinct is to say no, but if model A is edging out around the corner of a ruined building model B may be blocked by some part of the wall. We check LOS from the center of the model, does this mean height as well? Honestly it makes no sense to me that putting troops in a forest would give cover to everything they shot at, but the Rules As Written seems to confirm this.
Okay, moving on to LBH's question. From the rules: "However, models not in the same unit (as the shooting model) can block or obscure Line of Sight." The parenthesis were added by me for context. Seems pretty simple to me, any unit that is not part of the shooting unit may block or give obscurement, friend or enemy.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Rabidchild said:
Model B would not get cover, however model A would only be able to see B to shoot at him, if A was within it's sizescore of the edge of cover. Even if A was, within the size score, B would be able to see him to shoot at him, but A would still get the cover bonus as A is within cover.
Rabidchild said:
Yes, I know other models can obscure or block line of sight, but they are both separate states from Cover. If the figure is right behind a tank shaped wall, it's in cover, but if it's behind a tank, the way the rules are written, it's not as models can't provide cover. Biut the way the rules are written, impassable terrain doesn't provide cover, but Matt has ruled that it does.
Hence my question.
LBH
Rabidchild
Mongoose
lastbesthope said:
That's common sense, but there is still terrain between A and B so by the letter of the rules shouldn't B get concealment? It came up in a demo, so help me to explain it to a new player.
lastbesthope said:
I think I follow you now, your question of models taking cover was literally talking about in game cover. As it stands now I'd say no, as the models are not terrain, but if Matt would like to clarify like he did with impassable terrain that'd be fine. I just don't want to see the one marine touching a trash can and the rest of his squad stacked behind him in a conga-line to gain cover from the man in front of them.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
On the first point, the rules clearly state you can see through your own size inches of cover. No way can a model in open ground get a cover bonus.
On the second, that's exactly the clarification I'm after.
LBH
On the second, that's exactly the clarification I'm after.
LBH
Rabidchild
Mongoose
lastbesthope said:
Okay, I went back and read the sections on cover, shooting and LOS to clarify because if model B returns fire, it can also "see through" an amount of terrain equal to the size of the target and so negate its cover as well. The crux of this point, and the solution is in the cover section:
"For the purposes of Line of Sight, a firing model may 'see through' any Cover within a number of inches equal to its size score. It may also 'see through' and Cover within a number of inches to the target model that is equal to the target model's Size score. Models, if within terrain, may always claim cover rather than just having an obscured line of sight."
So in my example above, model A sees through the cover he is in and shoots at model B in the open. Model B gets no concealment as the cover was 'seen through'. Model B survives and returns fire as it can 'see through' the cover model A is in, but model A still get's the benefit of Cover as he is within the terrain. I had mistakenly thought that a model could 'see through' terrain and make all but the thickest concealment or cover useless. Sorry for the long posts, I think I have it now. Thank you for being a sounding board.
Similar threads
