Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Oaklock 05-16-06, 09:21 PM	Does a character (A) with a reach weapon threaten a square (x), 10' away, through a diagonal square, when there are two characters (B & C) adjacent to both that diagonal square and the character (A), or do the two adjacent characters provide cover to the square 10' away? A B C D x Would the intersection point (corner mutual to A, B and C) provide cover to x? ...by it being called a border being crossed? :confused:
Arvagor 05-16-06, 11:34 PM	A corner is not a border. In your example, a line can be drawn from the mutual corner of (A, B, C) to any of x's corners without crossing a border...
Samwise 05-17-06, 12:27 PM	I was contemplating iterations like that myself. Barring breaking out a battle mat and contemplating it at length with the rules open for reference, I agree with Arvagor. Despite what might seem "obvious" from the appearance, there is no cover there.
Howie23 05-17-06, 12:48 PM	I was contemplating iterations like that myself. Barring breaking out a battle mat and contemplating it at length with the rules open for reference, I agree with Arvagor. Despite what might seem "obvious" from the appearance, there is no cover there. But, oddly, A does have cover from a character in square x who has a reach weapon. David
Arvagor 05-17-06, 01:34 PM	But, oddly, A does have cover from a character in square x who has a reach weapon.Correct. The cover rules shouldn't (and don't, IMO) imply that cover between two people needs to be the same for both (relative to one another) Consider this as a thought experiment to illustrate the point. An archer is standing in a fortified tower; his room is 30' above ground level, and he can see the castle courtyard below him through an arrow slit. A person crossing the courtyard in front of him should have no cover whatsoever, but the archer has cover from any attacks made against him from the courtyard (and in this particular scenario, the cover bonus should likely be over and above the "standard" +4 -- more like +8, or possibly even 'Total')
Howie23 05-17-06, 03:27 PM	Correct. The cover rules shouldn't (and don't, IMO) imply that cover between two people needs to be the same for both (relative to one another) Yep, understood. W/respect to low obstacles, it is even explicit that cover is not shared. W/a low obstacle, both might have cover, neither might have cover, or only one. It depends on the distance to the cover and the relative size of the combatants. David
Casebier 05-17-06, 04:27 PM	A book with extended details on Cover is the Miniature Handbook. There are several examples of Cover, Line of Sight, and Line of Effect in there. Also, the MH just covers miniature combat with the DnD rules, so I don't see why it shouldn't be considered a valid reference for rules questions (just in case anyone wants to take up that argument.) John Jr
Oaklock 05-17-06, 10:09 PM	Thanks! :)