These rules are off-puttingly weird (I haven’t played yet but am learning). The two examples like Maul/Rex and the Droids under the gantry are…dumb?…because there’s nothing in between the minis :/

Great video, mess of a rule… They were really close to making a really special game, and while I think it’s still fun, there are just a couple rules that are pointlessly complicated and mostly unintuitive

I still don’t agree that the droids should get terrain cover from being UNDER a bridge when Rex is on the same elevation as them. That doesn’t seem correct at all!!!! Cover from the token fine, but no way should they get cover from a gantry that’s over their heads on a different elevation! Daft.

Great video. I think this weird mess can be more or less sorted by house ruling that the 'draw a line between bases' check should be done in 3D rather than top down. That way you get rid of the silly situations like Maul and Rex getting cover on the gantry and the even sillier one with Rex vs the B1s under the gantry. I'll certainly be playing it this way, but then I won't be taking part in tournament play.

Thanks for this, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in general about cover atm. I have a couple of notes for you if you're interested. @3:52 during the example between Maul and Rex on the Gantry. You say "does a line cross over that terrain". That is not what the rule says. it says(Core Rules, Pg 37) "A straight line can be drawn from any portion of the attacking character’s base to any portion of the defending character’s base *through* any number of those terrain parts." As the line passes over but not through the gantry upon which they stand, Maul has no cover. @5:15 when Rex is attacking the Battle Droids you say "a line passes through" when it actually passes *under* the gantry and from the Tarrain rules (Core Rules, Pg 36) we see that "Parts of terrain features are either Clear or Blocked. Clear parts do not block Line of Sight. A gantry with a Passable area underneath would be a Clear part - characters can draw LOS and attack underneath the gantry without issue." and while that is referring specifically to line of sight it can be infered that a "clear" terrain feature offers no cover. I offer these notes, not to be confrontational, but to further the cause of correct cover usage in Shatterpoint. If I'm mistaken, please do let me know as I'd like to avoid these mistakes in my own games.

Thanks for the video, these examples did a great job of getting your points across

Thanks for the video. I must say that I am not a big fan of overlly simplified terrain rules, like this one. It would be such an easy fix to add 'and the intervening terrain is of => 1 Inch height' - that would make muchmore sense than what we have now.

I've been looking through the rules to try and find something that supports line of sight being "measured" or any reference to it being two dimensional. As far a I can discern from the written rules line of sight is judged by just a single line base to base and therefore has verticality. The only measurements in the game seem to be range, movement and height of scenery. 😕

Getting cover from standing on top of the same piece of terrain as the attacker is so stupid. These rules are clearly designed with an empty table and only specific Shatterpoint terrain sets in mind. No regards for sculpted tables or other styles of terrain. Is my hill a piece of terrain or not? If yes, where does it begin and where does it end. I'm going to play with true line of sight and ignore most of the los rules, because they are so unintuitive. Thank you for sharing!

All of this is perfectly fine except for not benefitting from cover unless you have a hunker token and also the example of Rex shooting Maul. In absolutely no scenario should Maul gain cover from the bridge he's standing on. That's the absolute dumbest thing I've ever seen and I refuse to play it like that lol

Thank you for making this… it’s an awesome resource for me to point new players to!

You made a mistake in the example with Kalani and the clone trooper: because the terrain feature is the same elevation as Kalani, the trooper does not benefit from cover. He would have cover if their positions were swapped, i.e. the clone trooper would benefit from having the high ground.

6:43 if a ranged attack from (anyone) the is standing to the platrom on the right of the screen, standing on them 2nd level (same as Ani), targets Ani (let us assume it is within range of attack, and make it more interesting at that Ani is 100% behind that vent portion). Is ah attack from then2nd level bridge, still have LoS? With the building only being less then size 2, and Ani not having hunker, in the rulesmit says he is in Los, with no cover, even with that terrain blocking the real world view?

Gantries can be considered clear, why not bridges? if a ranged character and it's target are both on the mat, and neither are next to any terrain, but the ranged character is shooting under a bridge, you don't even have line of sight (no matter how high the bridge, btw), but it doesn't have to be that way. make it clear. yes, it does mean that you could shoot directly under the bridge from standing on top of it, but I don't think that's too bad. Maybe house rule that the bridge is only clear terrain when character and target are on the same elevation?

Games recently have been making the rules for cover so needlessly complex (Kill team)... but this may be the absolute worst ruleset concerning cover yet. I love everything else about this game... but this sucks so badly.

5:07 how are they within range 1 of the gantry? The gantry is higher than range 1 from them?

this is an abolute shit show of a rule. Don't believe i've seen a worse LoS rule in a game before...

New to the game. They clearly tried to make these rules easy. By doing that, they made them inane and completely counterintuitive. Which translates to hard and clunky. I hate them, and they are putting me off of the game.