Area Terrain and Shooting

[Graywinter]

The rules state that you can see through cover equal to your size score, and that you can be seen through cover equal to your size score.

So, a unit of infantry in the woods can see 1", and be seen from 1".

If two units of infantry, Soviet and German, are in the woods - how could they manage to shoot at each other? If one advanced to 1" so it could see an enemy, that would be a charge since the rules state (on page 22) that:

If you succeed in getting within Lethal Range of any enemy models with one of yours, you immediately fight in close combat.

Lethal Range is 1", the same as how far away you can see the enemy. Does this mean...

A) Infantry cannot shoot each other in the woods.
B) You add both LoS ranges together (Meaning the LoS is 2")
C) Get ready to add yet another house rule, and make up something.
D) Lethal Range only matters when you declare a charge. You can be within 1" and still shoot.

And, by the way, why does a tank get to see further into the woods just because it is big?

 

[Laffe]

I think the "see through cover" bit applies to your own cover, not the opponents.

So a Sherman in a wood can be shot at, and shoot out, if it is within 2" of the edge. Similarly, it can shoot at infantry *in another wood* if they are within 1" of the edge.

For units within the same cover I'm not sure. I wouldn't add the scores together I think, so if you are blundering about in a wood you are pretty much sitting in the lap of the enemy before you see him.

 

[hithero]

I never fully understood the rule in BFE and still don't in WAW, some examples with pics in the rules would have been good.

As I understand it; if both units are in the terrain, add the size scores together.
If one is then that model can only be seen if its within its size score of the edge.
No idea how this works (even if it does) for linear cover.

 

[Mr Evil]

we played it as you can see through terrain equal to size score then enemy can be seen upto thier size score... for example a size 1 infantryman can see another size 1 infantryman 2" away in woods, while a tank say size 3 for ease,, can see 3" plus 1" making a 4" engagment range for infantryman to tank and tank to infantryman..

personaly i feel it should be size of target plus 1" so an infantry man in a wood can see a tank size 3 from 4" away while the teank can only see the infantryman 2" away this would give infantry a real advantage in the game over limited view armour... i dont feel big tanks should see further than infantryman after all they had limited view... especialy in WAW.. in EVO you could allow tanks to have sighting devises that allow them to add thier size to spotting distance...

 

[Paladin]

Treat it like a bubble around your unit equal to your size score. i.e. Size 3 model can fire out of Cover if it's within 3" of the edge. You also target a model based on it's size score. If you can see the edge of bubble, you can see the target. i.e. a Size 1 infantry unit more than 1" in Cover is out of LOS and "invisible" in the building. Not the best, but works as a hard/fast rule.



But combat in wooded area doesn't work AT ALL with the rules as is. Everyone is invisible at unreasonable ranges. I recommend you change it to 3-12" per 1" of the core rules in wooded terrain (esp. if it's the whole board). Give them the cover bonus to be shot at but tweak the LOS rules.

 

[lastbesthope]

we played it as you can see through terrain equal to size score then enemy can be seen upto thier size score... for example a size 1 infantryman can see another size 1 infantryman 2" away in woods, while a tank say size 3 for ease,, can see 3" plus 1" making a 4" engagment range for infantryman to tank and tank to infantryman..

That's how it played in original BF:Evo

LBH

 

[non com]

after reading the rules again it looks like it would be better to use the same rules as fighting within structures when both squads are in the same area terrain as we do have some big area markers for woods(very cool) and both squads should benefit from what ever cover the area provides when your opponent chooses to shoot in close combat attacks but not receive the cover benefits when chooses hand to hand dice I think the size being the way things are spotted should only be used when one of the squads/vehicles is not in the same area

 

[Rabidchild]

Both A and D. You can "see through" terrain within your size in inches (here 1") and you can "see through" terrain within the enemy model's size in inches (here 1" also).

The close combat quote was within the Charge action, so if you don't Charge it doesn't apply.

The only problem I have with area terrain such as woods, is that while Infantry have to do the 2" dance back and forth, tracked vehicles rampage through the woods running over the poor infantry left and right. It's even more prevalent in the new BF:Evo with the Tracks movement ignoring terrain. A tank should never want to enter a forest where there are enemy infantry!

 

[hithero]

Both A and D. You can "see through" terrain within your size in inches (here 1") and you can "see through" terrain within the enemy model's size in inches (here 1" also).

The close combat quote was within the Charge action, so if you don't Charge it doesn't apply.

The only problem I have with area terrain such as woods, is that while Infantry have to do the 2" dance back and forth, tracked vehicles rampage through the woods running over the poor infantry left and right. It's even more prevalent in the new BF:Evo with the Tracks movement ignoring terrain. A tank should never want to enter a forest where there are enemy infantry!

This certainly is a bit of a foohpah, in our games vehicles don't enter woods - period. Its rediculous that they can move full speed and shoot in woods, most tanks would have trouble just turning the turret let alone pelt along shooting and a crushing.

 

[Agis]

Both A and D. You can "see through" terrain within your size in inches (here 1") and you can "see through" terrain within the enemy model's size in inches (here 1" also).

The close combat quote was within the Charge action, so if you don't Charge it doesn't apply.

The only problem I have with area terrain such as woods, is that while Infantry have to do the 2" dance back and forth, tracked vehicles rampage through the woods running over the poor infantry left and right. It's even more prevalent in the new BF:Evo with the Tracks movement ignoring terrain. A tank should never want to enter a forest where there are enemy infantry!

This certainly is a bit of a foohpah, in our games vehicles don't enter woods - period. Its rediculous that they can move full speed and shoot in woods, most tanks would have trouble just turning the turret let alone pelt along shooting and a crushing.

They also do not in our games. Just for the practical reason that we do not want to ruin the precios paintjobs in rough terrain features!

 

[MarkNorfolk]

after reading the rules again it looks like it would be better to use the same rules as fighting within structures when both squads are in the same area terrain as we do have some big area markers for woods(very cool) and both squads should benefit from what ever cover the area provides when your opponent chooses to shoot in close combat attacks but not receive the cover benefits when chooses hand to hand dice I think the size being the way things are spotted should only be used when one of the squads/vehicles is not in the same area

This sounds like a good way to handle it. Large wooded terrain peices could count as two seperate areas.

Cheers
Mark

 

[tneva82]

after reading the rules again it looks like it would be better to use the same rules as fighting within structures when both squads are in the same area terrain as we do have some big area markers for woods(very cool) and both squads should benefit from what ever cover the area provides when your opponent chooses to shoot in close combat attacks but not receive the cover benefits when chooses hand to hand dice I think the size being the way things are spotted should only be used when one of the squads/vehicles is not in the same area

This sounds like a good way to handle it. Large wooded terrain peices could count as two seperate areas.

Cheers
Mark

Alternative idea and what we use: Wood count as wood and not area terrain. Never been fan of area terrain rules anyway. Easy enough to eyeball wether there's LOS or not and from there to figure out wether to give obscurement or cover bonus. And if in doubt go for better.

Also prevents ridiculously short ranges inside forrest.

Now just need to order more woods from woodland scenics :lol:

 

[Iain McGhee]

I'm considering taking a leaf out of ACTA's book on this one, since I don't like the really short engagement ranges in woods either. In ACTA, you can't get LOS through a terrain piece but can draw LOS inside it or from it freely. The models in the woods would get a blanket medium cover bonus, regardless of model/tree placement as long as the centre was within the wood boundary.

 

[Rabidchild]

I'm considering taking a leaf out of ACTA's book on this one, since I don't like the really short engagement ranges in woods either. In ACTA, you can't get LOS through a terrain piece but can draw LOS inside it or from it freely. The models in the woods would get a blanket medium cover bonus, regardless of model/tree placement as long as the centre was within the wood boundary.

That's a good idea there Iain, I like it.

 

[Iain McGhee]

I'm allowed one every decade or so

 

[hithero]

The way I see is that there are two kinds of woods. The first is depicted by the WAW rules that is very dense with thick underbrush, jungle-like. The other is the more open wood, with little ground vegitation, these could just be represented by WYSIWYG models - up to the players on how they want to define a 'wood.'

 

[tneva82]

The way I see is that there are two kinds of woods. The first is depicted by the WAW rules that is very dense with thick underbrush, jungle-like. The other is the more open wood, with little ground vegitation, these could just be represented by WYSIWYG models - up to the players on how they want to define a 'wood.'

I didn't see any real definition of how to treat woods in the rules myself. Generally seemed pretty light on that area. Which is part of why we went for WYSIWYG approach to begin with.

 

[hithero]

The way I see is that there are two kinds of woods. The first is depicted by the WAW rules that is very dense with thick underbrush, jungle-like. The other is the more open wood, with little ground vegitation, these could just be represented by WYSIWYG models - up to the players on how they want to define a 'wood.'

I didn't see any real definition of how to treat woods in the rules myself. Generally seemed pretty light on that area. Which is part of why we went for WYSIWYG approach to begin with.

Exactly, if you want dense woods then follow Mongoos' rules, if not lay down trees WYSIWYG, easy solution.