Cover/repeter crossbow/hidden questions

1. I searched forum for this question but I'm still not convinced: why quickshot combined with repeater crossbow (or other way around) does not give shooter 4 attacks (all at -1 to hit) when using "fire twice" special rule? My reasoning is:
Quickshot allows model to fire twice, right? So i can shoot twice with repxbow and each shot can be used with "fire twice" special rule. I looked at the rules section, errata and f&q and there is nothing touching this subject.  
2. Cover. During last battle we had a little argument about cover. My opponent placed his warrior ("base to base") behind some rocks on the ground level. My shooter got into position some inches above ground level. In shooting phase I declared opening fire on mentioned warrior. I checked line of sight and noticed that my shooter can see entire enemy model (no obstructions on the way - checked with laser pointer). My opponent argued that his warrior stands behind cover after all so it doesn't matter. (finally we did it his way).
My question is: when target model stands behind cover but shooter can see (he's much taller or is higher than the target) entire model, does cover count or not? Rulebook:

Shooting wrote:

If any portion ofthe target is hidden by a piece of scenery or another model, the shooting model will suffer a penalty as
explained below.

Shooting wrote:

If the shooter can see only part of the target’s body, the
target is in cover and the shooter suffers a -1 penalty
on his To Hit roll.

My take on this would be:

1) You can't stack two lots of fire twice. In the case of the repeater crossbow, perhaps allow Quick Shot to grant a third shot but not a fourth. My group doesn't allow Quick Shot to work with crossbows at all, so this isn't something that has ever come up.

2) If the model was intentionally placed behind cover, I'd assume the warrior is taking cover and not standing there waving its weapons in the air.

Quote :

Quickshot allows model to fire twice, right? So i can shoot twice with repxbow and each shot can be used with "fire twice" special rule.

I haven't heard this argument since the rules review. (Not sure why.) The base rate of fire for a repeater crossbow is one. It has the special rule fire twice. The skill Quick Shot allows a weapon to be fired twice. Both rules only allow you to fire twice. Quick Shot does not say doubles the number of shots for the weapon.

Quote :

My group doesn't allow Quick Shot to work with crossbows at all, so this isn't something that has ever come up.

Hear, hear! I've always been amazed that the rules allowed crossbows to fire as fast as bows.

Rules for reference.

Quote :

Fire twice: A model armed with a repeater crossbow may choose to fire twice per turn with an extra -1 to hit penalty on both shots.

Quote :

Quick Shot. The warrior may shoot twice per turn with a bow or crossbow (but not a crossbow pistol).

I'm sure that this was discussed somewhere (maybe the old Mordheim forum?). I believe that the main consensus was that the warrior could not shoot four times by combining Quick Shot with a Repeater Crossbow. However, the warrior could take Quick Shot to remove the -1 to hit penalty when shooting twice. Some people did argue that this devalued the Repeater Crossbow though by removing the only advantage that it had.

Oddly enough (considering that it has been mentioned twice already), I don't allow Quick Shot with Crossbows in my group either these days so this is not up for debate in our group.

catachanfrog wrote:

2. Cover. During last battle we had a little argument about cover. My opponent placed his warrior ("base to base") behind some rocks on the ground level. My shooter got into position some inches above ground level. In shooting phase I declared opening fire on mentioned warrior. I checked line of sight and noticed that my shooter can see entire enemy model (no obstructions on the way - checked with laser pointer). My opponent argued that his warrior stands behind cover after all so it doesn't matter. (finally we did it his way).
My question is: when target model stands behind cover but shooter can see (he's much taller or is higher than the target) entire model, does cover count or not? Rulebook:

Shooting wrote:

If any portion ofthe target is hidden by a piece of scenery or another model, the shooting model will suffer a penalty as
explained below.

Shooting wrote:

If the shooter can see only part of the target’s body, the
target is in cover and the shooter suffers a -1 penalty
on his To Hit roll.

The rules doesn't allow for models to change stance (except by injuries) so I would say that if the cover is too small it's tough luck. If the model can be clearly seen he can be shot at without penalties.

As a side note I'd say that some good sense can be used when playing with converted warriors. For example my merchant caravan consists of rather stunted warriors, so I usually count that they are slightly taller than they actually are to avoid gaining an unfair advantage.

Alex wrote:

catachanfrog wrote:

2. Cover. During last battle we had a little argument about cover. My opponent placed his warrior ("base to base") behind some rocks on the ground level. My shooter got into position some inches above ground level. In shooting phase I declared opening fire on mentioned warrior. I checked line of sight and noticed that my shooter can see entire enemy model (no obstructions on the way - checked with laser pointer). My opponent argued that his warrior stands behind cover after all so it doesn't matter. (finally we did it his way).
My question is: when target model stands behind cover but shooter can see (he's much taller or is higher than the target) entire model, does cover count or not? Rulebook:

Shooting wrote:

If any portion ofthe target is hidden by a piece of scenery or another model, the shooting model will suffer a penalty as
explained below.

Shooting wrote:

If the shooter can see only part of the target’s body, the
target is in cover and the shooter suffers a -1 penalty
on his To Hit roll.

The rules doesn't allow for models to change stance (except by injuries) so I would say that if the cover is too small it's tough luck. If the model can be clearly seen he can be shot at without penalties.

As a side note I'd say that some good sense can be used when playing with converted warriors. For example my merchant caravan consists of rather stunted warriors, so I usually count that they are slightly taller than they actually are to avoid gaining an unfair advantage.

Warriors can hide which implies a change in stance. However, the was no mention of hiding in this scenario.

Just a random thought... some people use the base rather than the model to determine things like line of sight (i.e. the model is a cylinder (square prism) the size of the base and the height of the warrior). Therefore it could be argued that if the base was partially out of view then that would count for cover for the entire warrior.

This is a hard one. If the warrior up high could clearly see all of the warrior over what was obviously a fairly low cover then I personally would say that the warrior was not in cover. (We don't play the base rule mentioned above.)