Obscurement adds to kill score? Huh?

[GJD]

Something that had never clicked with me before, but was pointed out by my 8 year old nephew at the weekend - obscurment should surely affect the target score, not the kills score? I can see that cover would improve kill and armour scores, but obscurment makes you harder to hit, not more difficult to kill?

G.

 

[Iain McGhee]

The Starship Troopers rules that the Battlefield Evolution rules were developed from had cover and obscurement add to Armour Saves only. I still like that system better, don't know why they decided to change it for MC/WAW. I (and several others on here AFAIK) house rule that obscurement affects the Target score rather than the Kill score, why not give that a try and see if you like it better ?

 

[Troll66]

that is a good question...mmm if target is 5+ then 50% of all hits become kills in the open. I think a plus to save may be better here.

 

[Agis]

The decision to change the SST V1 system to the current system was (IIRC) based on the feedback for the original SST rules.

If you do not like the official rule - change it! It is your game after all.
8)
For me the current system works just fine, yes it is an additional level of abstraction, but the whole game design is more game effect oriented.

 

[Iain McGhee]

I think I recall it being explained that too few troops were casualties when Target was modified, so the rules were changed so that Cover added to Armour and Kill (you're firing at the right place, but your shots might hit the cover rather than the target and there's less of their vital areas exposed).

Obscurement isn't really the same thing as Cover, as the OP said. Perhaps it was done this way so that you really have to at least double Suppress other enemy units before safely moving troops into mostly open areas that enemy troops have LOS to, which is more realistic IMO.

 

[GJD]

Indeed. All valid points, however, consider that Fedayeen troops have target 4, Save-, Kill 6 (or 7, I forget off the top of my head, but we'll say 6 for our purposes)

Being obscured changes this (+1 to kill score) to T4, S-, K7. Since the troops have no save value, they still ALWAYS DIE on a 4+. The obscurement has meant not a jot of difference. In fact, being behind a concrete bunker wall (Save +1, Kill +2 IIRC) still makes no difference, since they don't have a save value.

Adding to the kill score of a unit that has no save value is pointless, since they always die when their target number is exceeded.

The fedayeen seem to be just as vulnerable dancing naked in the road as they are behind a concrete wall.

G.

 

[Iain McGhee]

Actually, troops without a listed save are counted as having a 7+ save for cover purposes i.e. Save 6+ in medium cover and Save 5+ in hard cover. That's come up on the forums a few times. They don't get a save in light cover (+1 Kill), but in your concrete bunker they'd be Save 5+/Kill 8+ (+2/+2).

 

[GJD]

Actually, troops without a listed save are counted as having a 7+ save for cover purposes i.e. Save 6+ in light cover and Save 5+ in hard cover. That's come up on the forums a few times. They don't get a save in light cover (+1 Kill), but in your concrete bunker they'd be Save 5+/Kill 8+ (+2/+2).

Is that in the BFE:MC rulebook anywhere and i just missed it, or is it a web ruling?

G.

 

[Iain McGhee]

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=36592&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=armor+armour+saves


From the keyboard of Matt Sprange himself, so you can consider it official.

 

[Troll66]

but troops with a 7+ save dont roll for it do they?

 

[Iain McGhee]

Bit of a waste of time trying to roll 7+ on a D6 :roll:

It does mean that you have a 6+ Armour Save in medium cover and 5+ in hard cover, however.

 

[Troll66]

many games calling for a 7+ on a d6 based engine require a 6 first then reroll dice requiring a 4+ this equals a 7+ target.
cheers

 

[Agis]

It does mean that you have a 6+ Armour Save in medium cover and 5+ in hard cover, however.

And that was the idea behind the 7+ ruling...
8)