I could use some help here folks as these questions have been argued/debated at a couple of venues in my area:

A Colossal/Double Based figure is sitting on a square of hindering terrain but is in clear terrain on other sections, does it get the hindering terrain bonus to Defense on a ranged attack regardless of if the opposing character is shooting through that square?

World's finest is sitting on 3 squares of hindering terrain. Is Batman Ally in effect for those 3 squares only? Can the opponent shoot the non-hindering section?

It has been argued that regardless of square, if the character occupies any hindering terrain it gets the bonus. I make the argument that your opponent can fire as normal through non-hindered sections of the base. Here's why:

Pg. 41 LOSH: Double Based characters/attacking- When drawing line of fire to or from a double-base character, the player drawing line of fire may choose to draw line of fire to or from either square occupied by the double base character.

Sentinel Rules: Attacking- A big figure... has a maximum of 12 adjacent squares. It can attack and be attacked through any of them.

Pg. 30 LOSH: Ranged attacks and the hindering terrain modifier- If a line of fire between two characters on the same elevation crosses the boundary line of hindering terrain, modify the target's defense value by +1...

Stealth power on the PAC: Any line of fire drawn to this character that crosses hindering terrain, including a square of hindering terrain occupied by this character, is treated as though it crosses blocking terrain.

*bold added for emphasis

It seems to me based on the above evidence that the rules clearly state that line of fire must be drawn through a hindering terrain square in order for the bonus to be in play.

Am I missing something here??? There is one player in particular who loves to argue (till the cows come home and rather loudly at that) that his Colossal/Big Figure should get the full hindering bonus in every square.

I appreciate your help in advance.

Taken from latest (April 2008) Errata and Clarifications:

Same case is also valid for 2x2 and 6x3 figures. So you are right on claiming:

Hope this helps.

Yeah, I knew it! *rubs it in Gabe's Face* It's nice to have varification though...

-Joe