Cover Question
- Thread starter Nekomata
- Start date
Turtle, you say
But what the rules say is you can 'see through' Cover, not that you can 'see over or under'. It also makes no mention of the size of the cover.
Wasn't this the case in SST? Didn't they explain it by saying:
Not that I thought this rule was good (apart from the corner example) but is it not likely that in EVO they are using the same kind of logic?
I think the Cover rules are badly worded. It may only be me, but I can't really understand what they are getting at. This may be the case for others, as there does not seem to be a universal idea about how cover works (as shown by this thread)
But what the rules say is you can 'see through' Cover, not that you can 'see over or under'. It also makes no mention of the size of the cover.
Wasn't this the case in SST? Didn't they explain it by saying:
Not that I thought this rule was good (apart from the corner example) but is it not likely that in EVO they are using the same kind of logic?
I think the Cover rules are badly worded. It may only be me, but I can't really understand what they are getting at. This may be the case for others, as there does not seem to be a universal idea about how cover works (as shown by this thread)
Larac
Mongoose
I did a pic to try and show what I think the cover rules mean,
The Wood is Med-Heavy So couunts as Cover.
If the wood was instead light scrub, I would be inclined to say Obscured and LOS for all.
Using A as the Active Model.
The Distance between A & D is 1" or less
They have LOS to Each other, Both also have Cover from each other
A to B & A to C are the same (goofed the drawing see below)
A to edge of woods is less than 1"
A has LOS to B & C, A is in Cover, B & C are Obscured
A to E
There is no LOS, to much woods
C to D
C has no LOS to D as there is too many " of wood.
If the woods between A & B was over 1" then they would not have LOS.
(which I meant to draw but goofed)
If E was a size 3 or greater, (and the distance between D to E was 3" or under) Then E & D would have LOS to one another, and both would have cover.
This is again what I think is meant.
This also works for models in buildings, as cover takes many forms.
Lee
The Wood is Med-Heavy So couunts as Cover.
If the wood was instead light scrub, I would be inclined to say Obscured and LOS for all.
Using A as the Active Model.
The Distance between A & D is 1" or less
They have LOS to Each other, Both also have Cover from each other
A to B & A to C are the same (goofed the drawing see below)
A to edge of woods is less than 1"
A has LOS to B & C, A is in Cover, B & C are Obscured
A to E
There is no LOS, to much woods
C to D
C has no LOS to D as there is too many " of wood.
If the woods between A & B was over 1" then they would not have LOS.
(which I meant to draw but goofed)
If E was a size 3 or greater, (and the distance between D to E was 3" or under) Then E & D would have LOS to one another, and both would have cover.
This is again what I think is meant.
This also works for models in buildings, as cover takes many forms.
Lee
Larac, thanks for the explanation and the diagram. What you are saying is very clear!
My problem with this is that it makes battles in, for example, woods very difficult, as models will only be able to fire at each other when they are within 2". This seems too short a range to me.
My problem with this is that it makes battles in, for example, woods very difficult, as models will only be able to fire at each other when they are within 2". This seems too short a range to me.
