Jump to content



Photo

Combined corner cover


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Inglo

Inglo

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 18 August 2012 - 07:58 PM

 Are the Sturmpioniere on the bottom right of p.10 of the rules in hard cover because of the combination of two soft corner covers?



#2 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 18 August 2012 - 08:47 PM

 No, corner cover only counts if you are adjacent to it.



#3 TallDwarf

TallDwarf

    Member

  • Members
  • 101 posts

Posted 18 August 2012 - 09:44 PM

 I am sure glad that I like to follow Dust Tactics news, rules and painting forums. This may be a rule that I have been mis-playing and since I am the person that has the game and have been teaching some friends I am the source of knowledge … and mistakes.

On page 9 of the Revised Core Rulebook, I have a question and a related question on p. 10

I always thought cover went the same both ways and I totally forgot/never realized the adjacent words. I think I need to go back and read the rule book in careful detail again.

In the following example I thought both the Death Dealers and the Heavy Flaks have soft cover cover, but is it only for the Heavy Flaks?

As a followup question. What would happen if the Heavy Flaks were exactly 1 square NW so it was still a perfect 45º. Would there be any corner cover?

 

From this situation I have another question regarding corner cover from opposite sides on p. 10.

 

What would happen if the if the Heavy Lasers were one square NE?

  1. Could the Allies and Axis be able to target each other?
  2. Would the Death Dealers get only soft cover (if they could target each other)?
  3. Would the Heavy Lasers not receive any cover (if they could target each other)?

According to the rules once I have re-read them, it seems the answers are

  1. Yes, they could target each other
  2. Death Dealers only get soft cover
  3. Heavy Lasers do not receive any cover.

Is my updated interpretation correct?

 



#4 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 18 August 2012 - 09:59 PM

 Only partially correct.  Most of your questions are answered by a unit only gets corner cover if adjacent to the corner.  And your Q1, LOS is still blocked as LOS traces past two opposing corners.



#5 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 19 August 2012 - 04:40 AM

 In your first example, Heavy Flaks would have no corner cover, since they're not adjacent to it.

In you second example, the attack would not be possible, since the LOS would still graze two opposite corners. IF it were possible, then your assumptions regarding cover would be correct.



#6 Ralan

Ralan

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 21 April 2013 - 10:00 AM

Sorry to jump in late on this but am new to Dust and confused by the LOS and opposite corner rule.  TallDwarf asked what would happen if the Heavy Laser Grendadiers were one square North and East.  Would LOS be still blocked by the opposite corners?  I have been playing it would not be.  The rules state "If a unit is adjacent to impassable terrain, it cannot target a unit who is ALSO adjacent to impassable terrain when the units receive corner cover from different sides."  Since the Grenadiers would, by moving, not be adjacent to the corner, LOS is restored despite the line going by 2 opposite corners.  Or not?  Thanks for any insight.  I love this game!



#7 Kriegschatten

Kriegschatten

    Member

  • Members
  • 207 posts

Posted 21 April 2013 - 01:10 PM

You might find this thread helpful: http://www.fantasyfl...=750451&efpag=0

 

I think I sent this question to FFG for a ruling a few months back, but never received a response.  I should probably send it again…



#8 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 08:27 AM

That is a perceived conflict between the original and revised rulebooks. Following the original text, any opposite corners in a 45º shotw ould block LOS, regardless of where the obstacles are. The Revised rulebook altered that thext slightly to suggest that both participants would need to be adjacent to the obstacles in question.

I myself follow the original wording, I don't see how the revision makes much sense…



#9 Kriegschatten

Kriegschatten

    Member

  • Members
  • 207 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 11:42 AM

I think even in the original rule book, though, it's not very clear what happens when there are two opposite corners between a pair of units but those units are *not* adjacent to the blocking terrain.



#10 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:04 PM

But at least the original rulebook didn't mention the necessity of being adjacent to the obstacle for opposite corner blocking to occur. And now we have an official ruling saying that the original rulebook has it right.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS