Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
36 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

GKR: Heavy Hitters» Forums » Rules

Subject: Total Cover vs. Partial Cover issue rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Aaron Cloutier
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
So, I'm having trouble with the full cover situation in GKR because of the hexes. I'm thinking I'm just going to have to house-rule it but wanted some additional opinions.

This image represents the RAW full cover situation which makes perfect sense.


This image represents an equal cover situation from a positional point of view. RAW would consider this to be a NO cover situation though.


So are you guys playing RAW in these situations or have you taken it into your own hands and played what makes sense?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't see any reason not to play RAW. Not sure common sense has a place in a game about giant killer robots.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Lewis
United States
West Lafayette
IN
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
greyerlynx wrote:
This image represents an equal cover situation from a positional point of view. RAW would consider this to be a NO cover situation though.


I believe you're misreading the rules.

In this situation, all of the shortest paths between HHs go through the building, which means that is has full cover.

Edit: Nevermind, I see what you mean. I didn't think about the other 4-hex paths that go around the building, and because it's not adjacent to the building it's not partial cover either.

I will definitely treat this as full cover, and pretty much disregard any "shortest paths" that aren't going in as straight a line as possible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan Feyes
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
I don't think ether situation counts as cover because the target HH is not adjacent to the building. I need to review the rulebook...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Full cover doesn't require adjacency to the blocking terrain. Just an inability to draw a clear shortest path.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan Feyes
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
sdiberar wrote:
Full cover doesn't require adjacency to the blocking terrain. Just an inability to draw a clear shortest path.


Further proof that I need to RTFM.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Wanamaker
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't have my physical rulebook atm, but the "Final" version they released online a while back says only adjacent buildings provide cover.

EDIT: LOS and cover are determined separately. A unit can not be in cover and still not have LOS.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Cloutier
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I tend to agree, but how do you define "as straight a line as possible"

The rules show such a short range example. I've been debating this in the FB group and there are a LOT of potentially odd situations.

I would like to say that it's the shortest path(s) along a straight line from HH to HH. Perhaps from each of the attack faces? If a straight line can't hit the enemy HH then you can't see them... but that's not the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Cloutier
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Ranwanimator wrote:
I don't have my physical rulebook atm, but the "Final" version they released online a while back says only adjacent buildings provide cover.


Hmmm.. I do see that but do you agree that it seems like full cover should be provided in these other situations?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Hunter
New Zealand
Hamilton
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I would say common sense should prevail in this situation. If it is not possible to see the target tile from the attackers tile, such as in your example, then it must be full cover. You have no possible line of site to that hex.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SuperMCDad wrote:
I would say common sense should prevail in this situation. If it is not possible to see the target tile from the attackers tile, such as in your example, then it must be full cover. You have no possible line of site to that hex.

The problem with this rubric is it renders some partial cover situations as defined in the rules, as full cover instead.

"Shortest path" is counted in hexes, it is not really disputable.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Laudermilk
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm pretty sure the "final" PDF is indeed that. Going off memory I believe it matches the printed one--at least on this subject.

While according to the letter of the rules, you could certainly argue no cover for the second situation presented. And I'd argue that would be a BS nonsensical interpretation and rule it was still full cover.

Same goes for adjacency (in fact that is how I played it). If your direct LOS path looks to be completely blocked--as in the first case, I'd say LOS is blocked.

It boils down to you need to apply some common sense when playing. Honestly, I would decline to play with someone who insisted on granting LOS in the second case shown in the OP.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Cloutier
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
claudermilk wrote:
I'm pretty sure the "final" PDF is indeed that. Going off memory I believe it matches the printed one--at least on this subject.

While according to the letter of the rules, you could certainly argue no cover for the second situation presented. And I'd argue that would be a BS nonsensical interpretation and rule it was still full cover.

Same goes for adjacency (in fact that is how I played it). If your direct LOS path looks to be completely blocked--as in the first case, I'd say LOS is blocked.

It boils down to you need to apply some common sense when playing. Honestly, I would decline to play with someone who insisted on granting LOS in the second case shown in the OP.


I'm beginning to see why they did it though. As a previous reply mentioned, the letter of the rules (which I missed) says that cover only applies when adjacent to a building (partial OR full). That make it very clear when you're in full cover or not. As soon as you extend it past an adjacent building it starts getting hard to determine whether you're in cover or not (my examples being the easier ones). I still don't agree with it, but from a gameplay point of view it makes it FASTER to determine cover if you go by the RAW.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
A Target has Full Cover if all shortest paths (or path) pass through 1 or more Buildings.

Quote:
To determine if the Target has Partial Cover, first identify the shortest path to the Target. If a player can count more than 1 shortest path to the Target, and 1 or more of those paths pass through a Building adjacent to the Target, then the Target has Partial Cover.

Quote:
A Target has no cover when none of the shortest paths pass through a Building adjacent to the Target.


By these definitions (from the final rulebook) your second situation is "no cover".

Whether it makes sense is up to you, but the rules are 100% clear.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Wanamaker
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
greyerlynx wrote:

Hmmm.. I do see that but do you agree that it seems like full cover should be provided in these other situations?


Maybe for direct fire weapons like energy and ballistic, but missiles can turn. If the HH is adjacent then maybe the turn is too tight for a missile, thus full cover. Away from the building, as are both of those examples, and also 4 hexes away, which now gets into the longer range weaponry anyway, then I'd say indirect fire at least would be allowed.

Probably would be my house rule on that. Would like to hear from Shem or Matt on this for sure though.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Brooks
United States
Katy
TX
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
claudermilk wrote:
I'm pretty sure the "final" PDF is indeed that. Going off memory I believe it matches the printed one--at least on this subject.

While according to the letter of the rules, you could certainly argue no cover for the second situation presented. And I'd argue that would be a BS nonsensical interpretation and rule it was still full cover.

Same goes for adjacency (in fact that is how I played it). If your direct LOS path looks to be completely blocked--as in the first case, I'd say LOS is blocked.

It boils down to you need to apply some common sense when playing. Honestly, I would decline to play with someone who insisted on granting LOS in the second case shown in the OP.


Your firing arc isn't defined from corners or the straightest line though for LOS, it is defined from the marked flat faces, and you count shortest hex path. I don't think it is a nonsensical interpretation of the rules, or something you need to "argue", it is simply the rules.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Wanamaker
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sdiberar wrote:

By these definitions (from the final rulebook) your second situation is "no cover".

Whether it makes sense is up to you, but the rules are 100% clear.



Final rule book has both of his scenarios as no cover as the HH is not adjacent.


EDIT: While technically not "Full Cover", attacker has no LOS in first example so can not fire any weapons except indirect with a spotter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ranwanimator wrote:
Final rule book has both of his scenarios as no cover as the HH is not adjacent.

Can you quote the rulebook in regards to this applying to full cover? Adjacency to buildings is not mentioned at all when defining full cover.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Cloutier
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
sdiberar wrote:
Ranwanimator wrote:
Final rule book has both of his scenarios as no cover as the HH is not adjacent.

Can you quote the rulebook in regards to this applying to full cover? Adjacency to buildings is not mentioned at all when defining full cover.


It turns out that it IS mentioned. The first sentence of the "Using Buildings for Cover" section states:
"Only Adjacent Buildings can provide a defending GKR with cover when attacked."

The wording there is cover in general. It is specified outside of the Full or Partial Cover sections.

I missed this until it was pointed out in an earlier reply.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Cloutier
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Thank you everyone for replies. I've realized I messed up in my original post. What I called "cover" was really a Line of Sight issue. So, with that in mind, I repose the issue:

According to the rules, if all the shortest paths to a target go through a building then there is NO LOS. Such as:


But based on those rules, an equally symmetrical situation could happen where you would have valid LOS. This obviously doesn't feel right.

(There are multiple 4 hex paths to the target and some of them don't go through the building).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
greyerlynx wrote:
sdiberar wrote:
Ranwanimator wrote:
Final rule book has both of his scenarios as no cover as the HH is not adjacent.

Can you quote the rulebook in regards to this applying to full cover? Adjacency to buildings is not mentioned at all when defining full cover.


It turns out that it IS mentioned. The first sentence of the "Using Buildings for Cover" section states:
"Only Adjacent Buildings can provide a defending GKR with cover when attacked."

The wording there is cover in general. It is specified outside of the Full or Partial Cover sections.

I missed this until it was pointed out in an earlier reply.

And so it does! Yet...
Quote:
If all shortest paths (or path) to an opposing Target pass through 1 or more Buildings, their LOS to that Target is blocked.

There is no practical difference between Full Cover and No LOS, right? So in the end it doesn't matter.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Cloutier
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
sdiberar wrote:
Quote:
If all shortest paths (or path) to an opposing Target pass through 1 or more Buildings, their LOS to that Target is blocked.

There is no practical difference between Full Cover and No LOS, right? So in the end it doesn't matter.


Right, but NOT all shortest paths pass through the building. THAT is the problem. It feels like it should be NO LOS, but rules say valid LOS.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
greyerlynx wrote:
sdiberar wrote:
Quote:
If all shortest paths (or path) to an opposing Target pass through 1 or more Buildings, their LOS to that Target is blocked.

There is no practical difference between Full Cover and No LOS, right? So in the end it doesn't matter.


Right, but NOT all shortest paths pass through the building. THAT is the problem. It feels like it should be NO LOS, but rules say valid LOS.

What? In the OP’s situation one, LOS is blocked (same effect as “full cover”). Situation two, LOS is not blocked and the target is not eligible for cover. This is what I’ve said from the start.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Wanamaker
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sdiberar wrote:

What? In the OP’s situation one, LOS is blocked (same effect as “full cover”). Situation two, LOS is not blocked and the target is not eligible for cover. This is what I’ve said from the start.


This whole discussion is moot. All of the discussion in the rulebook that talks about LOS to determine when an HH is in cover is a subset of Using buildings for cover. The very first sentence of which is
Quote:
Only adjacent Buildings can provide a defending GKR with cover when attacked. pg24
LOS isn't discussed anywhere else except spotting which is still a subsection of using buildings for cover.

If it's not adjacent, and it's in range you don't have cover and can be fired upon. RAW

Your house rules may vary.


EDIT: I have been educated. This post is moot.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kurt O

Austin
Texas
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sdiberar wrote:
greyerlynx wrote:
sdiberar wrote:
Quote:
If all shortest paths (or path) to an opposing Target pass through 1 or more Buildings, their LOS to that Target is blocked.

There is no practical difference between Full Cover and No LOS, right? So in the end it doesn't matter.


Right, but NOT all shortest paths pass through the building. THAT is the problem. It feels like it should be NO LOS, but rules say valid LOS.

What? In the OP’s situation one, LOS is blocked (same effect as “full cover”). Situation two, LOS is not blocked and the target is not eligible for cover. This is what I’ve said from the start.


That's the problem. I good amount of folks on this thread find that the second scenarios having Valid LOS is not intuitive.

I'd also hypothesize that the designers would want the second scenario to have No LOS, just like the first. But due to hex geometry and the English language, they didn't capture this condition correctly.

I imagine a further errata could be release that says something along the lines of "if there are multiple shortest paths to the target, there is no LOS if at least two paths go through a building."

Edit - this could create a weird situation too. If two buildings were on the outside paths, you could say that the rule says it's blocked. Hmm, this is harder than I thought.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.