|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/6/2009
Posts: 191
|
in the rule book it says
"Low objects provide cover to characters in those squares"
that sounds silly to me that you get cover when you're not standing behind something.
is that right?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/26/2008
Posts: 2,115
Location: Watertown, SD
|
It's as the rulebook says. A character standing on a Low Object square is in cover.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/17/2008
Posts: 254
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
kfc's waiting for you wrote:in the rule book it says
"Low objects provide cover to characters in those squares"
that sounds silly to me that you get cover when you're not standing behind something.
is that right?
not to sound harsh- but you're trying to apply "Real world" logic to a Game... if this helps.. try thinking in terms of the terrain being something not only as something to stand behind, but also something to have to manuver Through... sort of like the merchandise pallets at a Grocery store or Wal-Mart there is no way you'd simply just hop up on one of those and expect to stand, rather you'd have to contour your body and bend your knees to make the fit
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/30/2008
Posts: 1,290
Location: Stow Ohio, just north of Dantooine (vacay on Ando)
|
think of it as being in and between low objects, like a man hiding in a pile of boxes
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/8/2008
Posts: 2,219
Location: East Coast
|
It's not quite as bad as a Rancor (3x3 base) standing over a chair (1x1 square) towards the back...and still getting cover for it. ;)
(front)
xxx
xxx
xcx
(back)
x=Rancor; c=chair; result = +4 def for cover
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/26/2008
Posts: 2,115
Location: Watertown, SD
|
imyurhukaberry wrote:It's not quite as bad as a Rancor (3x3 base) standing over a chair (1x1 square) towards the back...and still getting cover for it. ;)
r Though to compensate for the fact that they are almost always in cover, huges have a lower defense stat on average compared to the smaller units.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 1/30/2009
Posts: 6,457
Location: Southern Illinois
|
EmporerDragon wrote:imyurhukaberry wrote:It's not quite as bad as a Rancor (3x3 base) standing over a chair (1x1 square) towards the back...and still getting cover for it. ;)
r Though to compensate for the fact that they are almost always in cover, huges have a lower defense stat on average compared to the smaller units. True. Also, if they had higher defense stats, but could not gain cover (like the colossal AT-AT for example) then we wouldn't be able to use Nom's Ooglith Masquer to give the Felcor super-stealth, which is arguably more fun than giving it Lightsaber Duelist via Darth Tyranus! 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/6/2009
Posts: 1,632
Location: Desintegrating some Djem So Sucka!
|
Felcor Nom Bomb Is waaaaaaay more fun then LS Duelist for sure.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 1/30/2009
Posts: 6,457
Location: Southern Illinois
|
Mandalore Da Beast wrote:Felcor Nom Bomb Is waaaaaaay more fun then LS Duelist for sure. But does not, a Dynamic Duo make!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/26/2008
Posts: 937
Location: Phiadelphia, PA
|
I have 2 questions somewhat on the topic too.
Ok lets say there is an enemy character standing in about a 4x4 squares of green low object cover on one side. & i have a figure who shoots standing on the opposite side not in the cover but adjacent on the outside of it. Would the low objects still provide cover if im adjacent to it & shooting through it at someone who is standing in it?
Also somewhat same questions, same rules apply but the enemy character is standing on 1 side of the 4x4 cover outside of it but adjacent, & i am standing on the opposite side outside of it adjacent, would the low objects also provide cover or would the enemy character not get the +4 defense bonus because even though we are squares away we are both adjacent to the green low objects cover? Remember were both outside of the green lined squares but both adjacent to a side..
Hope i explained that easy enough, thanx to anyone & everyone who answers..
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/26/2008
Posts: 2,115
Location: Watertown, SD
|
They would have cover in both examples. You only ignore the low object squares your character is standing on or adjacent to.
A 4x4 mass of Low Objects should not be seen as one big Low Object, but as 16 separate Low Object squares.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/26/2008
Posts: 937
Location: Phiadelphia, PA
|
man i did not know that, thanx Emp.. Reason why i asked is because i played someone on vassal awhile back & it was somewhat the same example that was in play & i was on one side of the green low objects cover & standing outside of it adjacent to it, & he had a character on the otherside same deal outside adjacent to it, & he said since we were adjacent like that he could shoot through it & i didnt get the +4 def bonus.
Then a few turns later i was standing in the Cover this time, & he was still standing on the other side outside of it adjacent to it, & we were about 4 squares away from eachother & he said again i dont get the +4 bonus because he was adjacent to the green low object cover.
So thanx for the clearification like always emp... thanx buddy
|
|
|
Guest |