A couple of BF EVO questions (NEW Qs 28th Mar 1749 UTC)

[lastbesthope]

Given that you've ruled a Warrior can be seen based on it's aerial, how much of something needs to be blocked by cover.

LBH

What does the rules sheet say?

Pretty much this:

as far as the rules sheel is concerned if a tank is touching a peice of brick 1mm high the tank can claim full cover.

Which was the line of reasoning I took yesterday. Evil was less than happy.

LBH

 

[Major Chaos]

Yup that's how to play it. It is what the rules say and is the fastest way to play. Something that small can easily be positioned so as not to be blocking any of the model though. Just move to the left or right a little.

I think it is just going to take a bit to get used to how everything works now.

 

[lastbesthope]

I have had Matthew's Mantra drilled into me now:

"Play the rules as written"

It really does work to resolve all issues.

LBH

 

[Mr Evil]

i prefer play to common sence, no way can a dead mouse give +2 target and kill to a challenger just cuz its in contact !!!!!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Which was the line of reasoning I took yesterday. Evil was less than happy.

LBH

You were absolutely correct

The cover rules were specifically written to stop arguments. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

i prefer play to common sence, no way can a dead mouse give +2 target and kill to a challenger just cuz its in contact !!!!!

Think of it this way - how many real life battles have completely flat terrain? You can assume this rule also factors in the bumps and rolls of the real earth. . .

 

[Mr Evil]

so your saying if any part of the vehicle is behind cover ie it is driving over a wall with the last bit of tracks not clearing the wall it is in full cover ?

i think this is the biggest problem for the game, the fact there is no reason behind some of it, ie a mm of the tank is in cover so the full tank gets cover from all angles ie if 2mm if rear track is in a rocky outcrop, that part and therefor entire tanks is in full cover. i personaly think a center point rule should come into effect here, as 1 plank of a park bench touchong the tracks isnt goin to stop a ckm missile from 5" away destroying a challenger in my opinion.


example 1

2 tanks can draw line of sight to each other under the belly of the dragon statue both about 4" from statue this would be concealment so just a +1 to target score evan though only 40% of enemy tank is visable.

example 2

2 tanks again this time the pla tank has its top mudguard scraping the dragon foot with about 2mm out of los to enemy vehicle and about 99.8% visable and out in the open, here the pla tank is at +2 to target and kill score.

is it just me or does this not quite sit right with any one else ?

 

[Mr Evil]

i think the game should favour the aggresor not the defender, this would speed games up and resolve issues faster, and reward flamoboyant play rather than stagnant.

 

[tneva82]

Yup that's how to play it. It is what the rules say and is the fastest way to play.

It's also highly illogical rule(here! I raise thin stick in front of me! Suddenly I'm in cover!) and illogical rules have bad habit of turning game from test of who's best player into who's best exploiting the rules...

 

[Mr Evil]

Yup that's how to play it. It is what the rules say and is the fastest way to play.

It's also highly illogical rule(here! I raise thin stick in front of me! Suddenly I'm in cover!) and illogical rules have bad habit of turning game from test of who's best player into who's best exploiting the rules...

exactly games against my friends are ok as we play to comon sence but if you play against LBH it has to be the letter of the rule evan against the spirit of the game. this can be a problem at a tourney as rules lawers will be playing a very different game than wargamers.

 

[lastbesthope]

i think the game should favour the aggresor not the defender

Why?

As for cover, it should favour the guy who's in it.

exactly games against my friends are ok as we play to comon sence but if you play against LBH it has to be the letter of the rule evan against the spirit of the game.

Now that's not true, I've played to house rules before, so long as they're discussed and agreed before hand. that didn't happen on Saturday. Plus it was a demo so just like we have to play with the official figs, we have to play by the official rules (Or at worst a subset thereof, but not an altered set of)

In my defence, I went with the majority rule at the time even though it turned out I was right.

And just to clarify another rules, 'seeing through' cover, the target still gets the cover bonus, it just allows them to be shot at rather than blocked LOS?

LBH

 

[Mr Evil]

i think the game should favour the aggresor not the defender

Why?

As for cover, it should favour the guy who's in it.

exactly games against my friends are ok as we play to comon sence but if you play against LBH it has to be the letter of the rule evan against the spirit of the game.

Now that's not true, I've played to house rules before, so long as they're discussed and agreed before hand. that didn't happen on Saturday. Plus it was a demo so just like we have to play with the official figs, we have to play by the official rules (Or at worst a subset thereof, but not an altered set of)

In my defence, I went with the majority rule at the time even though it turned out I was right.

And just to clarify another rules, 'seeing through' cover, the target still gets the cover bonus, it just allows them to be shot at rather than blocked LOS?

LBH

lol

dont get me wrong please, its just quicker to type lbh than rules lawer some times lol. but yeah we did play majority rule rather than to the letter of the rules but in tourney conditions some people exsploit such loopholes in them as part of their over all tactics in this case its not a level playing field.

 

[lastbesthope]

S'OK Evil, I was getting a bit hurt by all the pointed Rules Lawyers remarks seeming to be hurtled in my general direction (not as smelly as farts though I suppose)

I don't think you can really call it a loophole, it's not an inferred statement, it's explicitly stated. hro just called it a technicality on the other thread. It's neither a loophole or a technicality, it's the rules.

Don't read me wrong here, I'm not saying it must stay the way it is, I'm not saying it shouldn't. I'm just saying you can hardly blame people for playing the rules as they're written.

LBH

 

[Elvis in Combat]

I'm just saying you can hardly blame people for playing the rules as they're written.

LBH, I thank you for pointing out (indirectly in that other topic) that it's a good idea to read ALL THE RULES in context as well. I didn't realize the definition of "terrain".

Playing the rules as written is fine, so long as it's clear and understood ahead of time. Playing by the rules is not rules lawyering. Interpreting what could be unclear rules (not clear or unclear abstractions or what "makes sense to the real world in your opinion" that has nothing to do with the rules as written) makeith a Rules Lawyer. Since most people are new to this game, it's a good idea to go over the rules, especially if your playing an "experienced gamer" with other game systems. Some of the game rules for BF:E may be abstract but it's also clear. Since I play another platoon level game, I'm OK with the abstraction to faciliate the "feel" for that level of command. It's not the platoon leaders concern how the individuals of a particular squad are in cover with a particular pose. What matters is the squad is where they were ordered to be! 8)

Frakkin' game is four pages of rules and I'm still learning it...Getting old sucks...

 

[BuShips]

Frakkin' game is four pages of rules and I'm still learning it...Getting old sucks...

Heh, it's even less than four pages, if you discount the large "Battlefield Evolution" logo. :wink:

 

[lastbesthope]

Thanks for your kind comments Elvis. I like your definition of rules lawyer, that's not me. I'm more of a rules paralegal :lol:

I just want the rules to be clear to everyone. My rules 'lawyering' is usually right (so far, touch wood) but the ruling is not always in my favour when it comes to the end result.

As for having trouble with 4 pages, wait till the Advanced Book comes out, 96 pages IIRC, though there will likely be lots of pretty graphics to trim that count down :lol:

LBH

 

[lastbesthope]

OK,

Going by the letter of the rules:

Cover in Battlefi eld Evolution is any piece of terrain that models may move through and still have Line of Sight drawn to them. This includes low
walls, woods, hedges and ruins.

So by that definition, impassable terrain can't provide cover, even if you're tight up behind a 60' wall, poking your head round the corner, you're still only obscured.

That can't be right can it?

LBH

 

[tneva82]

That can't be right can it?

As right as 1mm thick stick providing full cover to tank :lol:

Why is this crazy rule any more "can't be right can it" than first crazy rule?

 

[lastbesthope]

It may be just as right, and if it is I'll play by it, but it doesn't hutrt to ask.

LBH

 

[Turtle]

Which is why I was asking earlier where they got the idea that being 1" from a corner put you in line of sight and gave you cover.

By letter of the rules, that's imply not possible.