Improved Precise Shot + Snapshot = AoO against target with cover?

[Ayrphish]

Title asks the question.

A fighter/archer that I am GMing has (Improved)Snap shot, I have told him that he can't make an attack of opportunity if the target has cover. (As per the cover rules)

He has asked if Improved Precise Shot would negate that rule.

Cover rule::

You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.

Snap shot::

While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.

improved precise shot::

Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.

[Grick]

Ayrphish wrote:

A fighter/archer that I am GMing has (Improved)Snap shot, I have told him that he can't make an attack of opportunity if the target has cover. (As per the cover rules)

He has asked if Improved Precise Shot would negate that rule.

I think technically, he can't take the AoO.

Improved Precise Shot ignores the AC bonus from cover, but nothing else.

[Seranov]

Ayrphish wrote:

Title asks the question.

A fighter/archer that I am GMing has (Improved)Snap shot, I have told him that he can't make an attack of opportunity if the target has cover. (As per the cover rules)

He has asked if Improved Precise Shot would negate that rule.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.

This part reads pretty definitively for me that you can't. I would imagine not being able to take AoOs against targets with cover would qualify as a "normal benefit of cover."

[Ayrphish]

@Grick, thats how I was reading at as well...

@Seranov, I got that part, but this would deal with partial cover, not necessarily total cover, right?