Shooting, line of sight & cover

The question is:
Does -1 penalty for cover applies when target is not in cover but between the shooter and that target is some kind of obstacle?

if that obstacle obstructs the shooter's line of sight to the target, the target counts as being in cover.

Yes, and if shooting from elevation at a model partially covered by another model, then the target model has cover.

That's what I taught too... Just to be clear. Thanks guys!

Of curiosity, who do you play gets to nominate what is claimed as the cover? The target or the shooter?

Anything that obstructs the view of the target is cover, it's already defined. So if there's a pebble covering the target's right foot, does it get cover...? :O

We usually have a neutral third party available to settle any such disputes when we play.

Going by the rulebook, a pebble covering a foot would constitute cover. By the same token, a foot sticking out of a doorway means you can shoot at that target with only a -1 to hit. You can avoid such silliness if you build your terrain with gameplay in mind, and pay some attention when placing your models.

Generally with the people I play with, we don't have those kinds of arguments. Fortunately.

Interesting side-note:

We play that if the "covering object" is only 1" away from the shooter, then it does not provide cover. This allows archers to shoot over parapets without penalty, as well as giving you the option of a 2-rank firing line.

Lord 0 wrote:

Of curiosity, who do you play gets to nominate what is claimed as the cover? The target or the shooter?

We play the target (pretty sure its in the rulebook). It gives the fun option of claiming cover from enemy models and them getting hit by the "One less than the score needed to hit means the cover is hit" rule.
I've shot a few of my own Orcs with that!

Yeah, we do the same, and I have done that to my orcs more than once too. Makes Trick Shot a skill chosen before Quick Shot for the close support shooters.

The rulebook only defines what counts as cover and what doesn't. If there is more than one piece of cover it doesn't say who gets to decide which piece of cover will get hit if you miss by one.

FKSN wrote:

We usually have a neutral third party available to settle any such disputes when we play.

How on earth is there an argument? If you can see a foot: -1. If a pebble is covering a foot: -1. If you can see every part of the model: -0. If you *cannot* see every part of the model: -1. That doesn't leave a lot of room for argument. Indeed, I believe it is specifically why they made the cover rules as they did - no more arguments like you would get in Necromunda about whether you should get -1 or -2 for cover.

It is a game, not a simulation and sometimes you just have to accept abstractions to keep the game smooth and convenient. It is like move or fire or the reloading rules. Doesn't 100% accurately model reality, but most other solutions increase book-keeping or other bothersomeness.

[quote="Lord 0"]

FKSN wrote:

It is a game, not a simulation and sometimes you just have to accept abstractions to keep the game smooth and convenient. It is like move or fire or the reloading rules. Doesn't 100% accurately model reality, but most other solutions increase book-keeping or other bothersomeness.

Yes! This!

Lord 0 wrote:

FKSN wrote:

We usually have a neutral third party available to settle any such disputes when we play.

How on earth is there an argument? If you can see a foot: -1. If a pebble is covering a foot: -1. If you can see every part of the model: -0. If you *cannot* see every part of the model: -1. That doesn't leave a lot of room for argument. Indeed, I believe it is specifically why they made the cover rules as they did - no more arguments like you would get in Necromunda about whether you should get -1 or -2 for cover.

It is a game, not a simulation and sometimes you just have to accept abstractions to keep the game smooth and convenient. It is like move or fire or the reloading rules. Doesn't 100% accurately model reality, but most other solutions increase book-keeping or other bothersomeness.

Amen.

So how do you guys feel about shooting at the tips of weapons or feathers on hats? In other words, does a piece of the model's body need to be visible, or is a bit of his base or weapon enough?

I go with the Body option - on the one hand because it makes more sense to me, and on the other one because the illustration on page 13 in the LRB clearly marks model B as out of sight and unable to be shot at, while the whole feather on his hat is in fact completely visible; ergo (for me at least) feathers and weapon tips do not count in this regard, only bodies.

Yeah I usually play it more cinematic. Anything that would obviously not be always exposed should not be. Feathers, weapons, tails etc. This encourages fun posing of models. And everyone knows an Orc looks stupid(er) when his arms are tucked in tight just to reduce his profile. Arms out ready to chop looks best.

1" Rule: Well, we always try to measure from the model's HEAD. Which means if he's standing at a wall and the wall is shorter than his head, no cover. If it's blocking his sight, cover it is.

DRD: We play that he is visible if you can see any part of his BODY. (Likewise, in cover if any of his BODY is covered. ) Weapons and feathers don't count.

The OOOOONLY cover we ever discount is bases from knocked down or stunned models. If their base is flipped up (as the warrior is prone, that occasionally blocks a shin or two. Does NOT count as cover for us.

@Styro: "Measure from the head" makes good sense. Of course, it's not always easy to get down to a models eye view, but it's still sensible. You don't think the rules allow for a two-rank firing line though?

In my circle we target heads, hands, feet, whatever. We do not target feathers, weapons, etc. Although we are all pretty competitive so far noone has gone to the effort to re-sculpt all their models. Besides, we have a two-way thing. If I can draw LOS to you, then you can draw LOS to me.