lastbesthope
Mongoose
Turtle said:
Didn't that get cleared up?
LBH
A couple of BF EVO questions (NEW Qs 28th Mar 1749 UTC)
- Thread starter lastbesthope
- Start date
Didn't that get cleared up?
LBH
lastbesthope said:
Where is impassable terrain defined in the rules? Terrain is terrain on the rules sheet (the advanced rulebook defines different types of cover).
msprange said:
OK, I see where they are getting this. Matt, you have to take into account that every word in the rules sheet is being absorbed by the players for two reasons. First, it's short enough to focus on nearly every single word and that works against itself as people are literally reading too much into those words. Second, we're all like rabid dogs that have been hungry for something to sink our teeth into, so you can consider this a good test of those printed rules, to be sure. :wink:
Although it is not defined as such, impassible terrain is mentioned at the front of the Terrain Section description (I'll call it the top of page "three"). It says "(... that some terrain, such as tall cliffs and high-rise buildings, is impassible and may not be moved through at all)."
Some players are combining that with the Cover descriptions that say that "Cover in Battlefield Evolution is any piece of terrain that models may move through and still have Line of Sight drawn to them."
I think that this is where you are saying that too much is being read "literally!" into those words. When the two phrases are compared and contrasted, it is taken that since impassible terrain cannot be moved through, it therefore cannot provide Cover. That's about it!
If it was stated that "Cover in Battlefield Evolution is any piece of terrain that models may move through (passible) or stop behind (impassible) and still have Line of Sight drawn to them. A model has to be touching (on the opposite side of the terrain to the firing model) or within suitable terrain (such as woods or ruins) to take advantage of Cover".
This would not only dissolve away one of the points being discussed, it might remove Mr. Evil's main problem as well. If the Line of Sight is not intersected by any part of the touching terrain, then it cannot be claimed as Cover, but still might qualify as Obscuring terrain.
I suppose that with your dedicated customers "helping" in this way, you should be rather proud of a game that has all of the possibilities that it does, and stands on so few words. :wink:
tneva82 said:
You are making my point. I (and a lot of other players) are reading those words as written, and a point can be made "That's what the rules say". Try to look at the following quote (which will no doubt be better clarified with the Advanced Rules):
Cover in Battlefield Evolution is any piece of terrain that models may move through and still have Line of Sight drawn to them.
Now read this variant and tell me how it clarifies things:
Cover in Battlefield Evolution is any piece of terrain that models may move through or hide behind and still have Line of Sight drawn to them.
Which version works better with this other rules text:
...you may, optionally, agree with your opponent that some terrain, such as tall cliffs and high-rise buildings, is impassible and may not be moved through at all.
I'm quite happy with my analysis, thank you, and will indeed be doing what Matt suggested earlier to Mr Evil, to make sure to discuss the conditions of the terrain before the game, even if it turns out to be a tourney.
see in all the games we played there was no problem with cover at all, but nothing against LBH but he likes to stringently play to how rules are written no matter how little sence thay may maye to seasoned wargamers. in thease situations you have to be carfull. i think rule of thumb should be common sence should provail in some instances over the writen word as the writen word doesnt take into account how every one reads them
we play as if the vehicle is in a position in real world terms to sue therrain peices as defensive cover then thats what it is, if its borderline or intersecting terrain then its obscured. we feel happier playing it that way as it feels and flows better.
we play as if the vehicle is in a position in real world terms to sue therrain peices as defensive cover then thats what it is, if its borderline or intersecting terrain then its obscured. we feel happier playing it that way as it feels and flows better.
I love it when the debate turns to common sense.
Common sense is a point of view, not an absolute. My common sense might appear utterly ridiculous to you.
That is why gamers are increasingly resorting to RAW Read As Written. It may on occasion produce odd results, but everyone knows where they stand with RAW, and everyone ends up playing the same game.
Good example from the new GW Codex Dark Angels. One item makes everyone within a certain range Fearless. Not friendly units, not Dark Angel units, everyone. Common sense might suggest it means friendly or Dark Angel, but what happens if it's two Dark Angel armies facing off?
Hence RAW is the only way to go to be sure we're all playing the same game.
Common sense is a point of view, not an absolute. My common sense might appear utterly ridiculous to you.
That is why gamers are increasingly resorting to RAW Read As Written. It may on occasion produce odd results, but everyone knows where they stand with RAW, and everyone ends up playing the same game.
Good example from the new GW Codex Dark Angels. One item makes everyone within a certain range Fearless. Not friendly units, not Dark Angel units, everyone. Common sense might suggest it means friendly or Dark Angel, but what happens if it's two Dark Angel armies facing off?
Hence RAW is the only way to go to be sure we're all playing the same game.
tneva82 said:
Yes, it would. No difference at all, the way that I remember Mr Evil's photo. Since the LOS is not broken by the terrain, the tank trying to use it as cover doesn't qualify for anything but Obscured. Now if you are mentioning the first photo with the tank set back, that of course was Obscured as well. My comment above was specifically to speak to the folks that were saying that hiding behind a building that was defined as impassible terrain wasn't going to ever give Cover because you could not move through it (and this was caused from reading the rules as written).
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Matt,
Thanks for stopping by this thread again. As Buships has pointed out, the pertinent sections of the rules dealing with Impassable terrain and cover are from the Terrain and Cover sections of the rules.
The first quote from the Cover section seems to imply that impassable terrain, since it cannot be moved through, is ineligible to provide Cover on that basis.
Obviously you can't get a Cover bonus for being within impassable terrain as no model can be there.
And it has already been ruled that If a model is on the other side of, and touching, passable terrain so that part of the model is obscured from the view of the attacker, that model as the standard Cover bonus of +2 to it's Hit and Kill scores.
However, there is a possible ambiguity in the use of the word Cover to describe both terrain that can be moved through (and that grants a Cover bonus), and the state caused by a model being behind and touching terrain (Whether impassable or not??)
The questions I put to Matthew are therefore:
1) If a model is on the other side of, and touching, impassable terrain so that part of the model is obscured from the view of the attacker, would that model gain the Cover bonus of +2 to it's Hit and Kill scores?
2) Can you 'see through' impassable terrain to the same degree that you can 'see through' Cover?
Now whether or not this is cleared up in the Advanced rules, we need to know for those of us that are still waiting for it's release and are playing by the basic rules, and those players yet to come who may not bother buying the Advanced book.
Thanks for your answers, let's all wait for official ones, I think we fans have picked the bones of the rules to death by now
LBH
Thanks for stopping by this thread again. As Buships has pointed out, the pertinent sections of the rules dealing with Impassable terrain and cover are from the Terrain and Cover sections of the rules.
BF Evo Rules : Terrain said:
BF Evo Rules : Terrain said:
BF Evo Rules: Cover said:
BF Evo Rules: Cover said:
The first quote from the Cover section seems to imply that impassable terrain, since it cannot be moved through, is ineligible to provide Cover on that basis.
Obviously you can't get a Cover bonus for being within impassable terrain as no model can be there.
And it has already been ruled that If a model is on the other side of, and touching, passable terrain so that part of the model is obscured from the view of the attacker, that model as the standard Cover bonus of +2 to it's Hit and Kill scores.
However, there is a possible ambiguity in the use of the word Cover to describe both terrain that can be moved through (and that grants a Cover bonus), and the state caused by a model being behind and touching terrain (Whether impassable or not??)
The questions I put to Matthew are therefore:
1) If a model is on the other side of, and touching, impassable terrain so that part of the model is obscured from the view of the attacker, would that model gain the Cover bonus of +2 to it's Hit and Kill scores?
2) Can you 'see through' impassable terrain to the same degree that you can 'see through' Cover?
Now whether or not this is cleared up in the Advanced rules, we need to know for those of us that are still waiting for it's release and are playing by the basic rules, and those players yet to come who may not bother buying the Advanced book.
Thanks for your answers, let's all wait for official ones, I think we fans have picked the bones of the rules to death by now
LBH
tneva82 said:
Tell me where the rules are still broken if you add the corrections that I've suggested recently? I'm not on either side of this issue now, as I'm trying to solve it. In both of the examples that Mr Evil used, my slight clarifications would make both of the examples Obscurement. Right now I'm not on one side of the debate or the other. I'm on the side to clarify the rules. I've never said that the rules were broken and I've never said that the rules were perfect "as written" either. There ARE however ways to resolve Mr Evil's great examples while not expressly rewriting the rules sheet. All that has to be done is to declare that impassible terrain can be cover (and Matt has NEVER said that it can't be, Guys, but the rules were alluding to it because a few words were left out) and that terrain trying to be used as Cover M-U-S-T intersect the Line of Sight between the firing model and the target to qualify, or else it is consisidered as only Obscured. In other words, any partial blocking by terrain that does not actually intersect the thin LOS line qualifies as Obscuring Terrain. IF, however, the LOS is intersected (and the model is either touching the terrain or is contained wholly inside the terrain such as woods or a ruined structure) then the terrain can be used as Cover. Your arguments are circular tneva82, as at times I've read your comments as coming from both sides of the issue. You told me recently to "Read the rules as written", but that goes nowhere, really. The condensed rules are put together very well (congrats to Matt & Co.) but are not absolutely bullet-proof. If Matt would mandate that Cover needs to intersect the LOS, then I think it would work better. It would move the game from "very abstract" to "somewhat abstract" and would help imho.
example 1
example 2
LBH, well put. I'll venture that Matt will say YES to #1, as he has already been perplexed that players are having that quandary. I'll be looking forward to whatever Matt offers and as you pointed out I've stated my points as well as I'm able and can now sit back and sip my coffee a bit more in a relaxed manner. :wink:
Oh, and because I've now brought Mr Evil's photos ahead into the current thread area, I would allow Cover to the tank that is presently Obscured if it was moved forward into touching the Dragon, and that fits with my little rules addition/suggestion to LOS. The other one that's fender is touching off to the side I'd call Obscured. 'Nuff said.
BuShips said:[example 2
Yes. And piece of challenger has LOS blocked by the dragon(see the right corner? You see...That small piece behind dragon?). LOS broken. By your new definition in cover since it's touching terrain piece that breaks the LOS(albeit in very small piece) that can give cover.
tneva82 said:
OK, now we're making progress! I had dismissed what you now describe because it didn't fit my own understanding from the rules of Line of Sight, and I wasn't sure you or anyone else was thinking that way. So my next comments will not only help our discussion but help all others that are in this little "mental exercise" (hey, my mind needs this badly, lol).
OK, here we go. Under Fire Zones and Line of Sight, it states "Before you can shoot at an enemy unit, the models in your unit must have a Line of Sight to the intended targets. In all cases, Line of Sight is traced as a straight line from the centre of each of the firing models to the centre of what is called the Fire Zone...". So you, or even others are looking at LOS very differently than I and perhaps other are. Heck, we need to all be on the same page on this if we are to get anywhere, or even communicate our various thoughts here. Now does all of what I have said change in you mind's eye? I'd think it should. :wink: Anyone else want to contribute as well? HMM??? I'm here to learn as well as offer opinions... :wink:
So, if I am not totally off my rocker on my understanding of Line of Sight, in Mr Evil's now famous (lol) photo, the target tank would not be under Cover as the LOS passes over clear terrain, see? Now, IF the firing player wanted to voluntarily shift his Fire Zone to the right and behind the tank mud guard, then I suppose it would be Cover, but who would want to do that? :roll:
Similar threads
