Obscurment and cover

[BuShips]

There was a similar discussion to this on the Confrontation forums - someone suggested modelling their figures down holes with just heads sticking up. :roll:

Ahh, that must be why some gaming accessory manufacturers are now selling extra heads :lol:. It's for the rules lawyers, lol. I'm just kidding. Well, at least I sure hope so, heh.

http://www.anglianminiatures.co.uk/13.html?frm_data1=1&frm_data1_type=large

 

[tneva82]

It's like Space Marine Sgts. with those Banner poles....I actually stopped putting those on after a few shots of 'hey, i can see you' when I was behind a hill.

Except in 40k simply seeing banner wasn't enough...

One part where 40k actually made sense...

 

[lastbesthope]

It just doesn't make sense that impassable terrain can't provide cover, so what if my soldier sticks his head round the end of a 60ft high wall, he's only obscured?

I think there should be a difference between cover you can move through, and things that provide cover even if you have to go round them

I know, play the rules as written, I will, doesn't mean I have to agree with them though

LBH

Off to his BF EVO Rulesmasters thread

 

[Mr Evil]

6 pages and all we have found is more loop holes.

mongoose please sort this problem out so it makes sence to the human eye in advance rule book please.

playing to the letter is good yes but not when the rules are writen without realising some people take the letter to the absolute extreem.

 

[MongooseMatt]

playing to the letter is good yes but not when the rules are writen without realising some people take the letter to the absolute extreem.

They are supposed to The rules were written to be absolutely without interpretation.

Now, if you want to play with 50/50 cover useage, or any other variation, and your opponet agrees - that is just fine with us. Even at the tournament. However, the basic game has these rules so there is no room for arguments.

 

[Mr Evil]

fair enough mat but as you can see from this thread and from the opinion of long term wargamers, this doesnt feel right, there is nothing against playing to the rules what were saying is the rules need to be a bit more complete so these situations dont happen.

evan in your battle reports you dont get people taking the micheal out of the rules to gain an advantage, but rules lawers will, and the game wont feel right, and this will put people of, the game system is great, the cover rules are a bit absurd to be honest and not very well thought out or tested against a a full spectrum of types of gamers.

acording to the rules a vehicle can go up and down in a building. show me a stair well where big enough for a challenger battle tanks.

just use th size stat, ie a size stat ie 1/4 the size must be in cover rounding up ie a size 4 tank needs to be atleast 1" in cover to claim obscurment, evan that would help.

from talking to freinds, since game with LBH if this is the law of the land you could have just lost 3 gamers, wich is 3 less oponents for me. and has put one totaly of going to a touney where rules lawering overides common sence evan a grunt could understand.

 

[Mr Evil]

can i add this as well

according to your rules

a wall is impassable so can only offer obscurment to a tank, while a park bench can offer a tank full cover !!!

all i ask is please consider looking into upgrading the cover rules befor advance rule book please, and stop these situations happeneing.

 

[MongooseMatt]

acording to the rules a vehicle can go up and down in a building.

No it doesn't. Where is vertical movement covered at all?

You are reading way too much into the rules. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

all i ask is please consider looking into upgrading the cover rules befor advance rule book please, and stop these situations happeneing.

As I have said many times, the advanced rulebook has all sorts of cover rules, which cover everything you are looking for. The rules sheet has a finite size and if more detailed covr rules were to go in, something else would have to come out. What should that be? Suppression? Close combat? Shooting?

The intention was to get you guys playing as quickly as possible with a rules set that was completely unambiguous. This has been achieved.

When you get your mits on the advanced rulebook, you will have everything you desire and more. . .

 

[Mr Evil]

acording to the rules a vehicle can go up and down in a building.

No it doesn't. Where is vertical movement covered at all?

You are reading way too much into the rules. . .

open day was mentioned that modles can go up and down a level in building by one level per action.

im not reading any more into the rules than say a rules lawer who wishes to win a game over all reasonable game play would do, not my style, but a brushes with these types of players, causes me grave concern. i wish to play people from all over the world with the same set of rules without having to set out what is reasonable cover when simply these things can be resolved in the main rules with a sentence and still remain game feel and a look of realism.

all im saying and a few others in MSN, is i hope this situation is stoped in advanced rule book and if not we hope your looking into it, i mm of cover isnt enough to count as full cover to a tank, ie my size suggestion would resolve that with a sentence.

 

[Mr Evil]

all i ask is please consider looking into upgrading the cover rules befor advance rule book please, and stop these situations happeneing.

As I have said many times, the advanced rulebook has all sorts of cover rules, which cover everything you are looking for. The rules sheet has a finite size and if more detailed covr rules were to go in, something else would have to come out. What should that be? Suppression? Close combat? Shooting?

fair comment

When you get your mits on the advanced rulebook, you will have everything you desire and more. . .

thats all we wish to know, so far it as a subject has been treated as well this is how it will always be, the fear of a 2mm hight pot plant giving more cover than the corner of a building is just a bit scarry for those of us trying to promote a game system.

 

[Mr Evil]

many thanks mat by the way for that big ray of hope, we look forward to advance rule book

and many thanks for being involved in communicationg with your gamers, and sorry if our and my passion ever drive you to pulling your hair out.

 

[BuShips]

many thanks mat by the way for that big ray of hope, we look forward to advance rule book

and many thanks for being involved in communicationg with your gamers, and sorry if our and my passion ever drive you to pulling your hair out.

Hey Mr Evil, check out my thoughts on the http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=25532&start=90&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=7625bd0ceaa1f874a946ed657b6fbc2f thread. At least I've boiled it down to where those words are and how they compare and contrast to each other. Matt has said that he didn't want to paint dots on the model centers, but the rules still mention reference to the model centers in the rules anyway, so I don't see how it would hurt the game to define that in your "Dragon Statue" example since there is no broken LOS there can be no Cover claimed. I'd maybe let it serve as Obscured, since it qualifies for that. That at least pulls the players more out "into the sunlight", won't it? I also see where Matt is coming from in keeping it really KISS, but us old warhorses are customers, too :roll:. If Matt made the two conditions for Cover into three (adding a broken model center-to-center LOS to "touching" and behind), it should work well. In fact, it's already in the rules as written (as I see it) by stating that Obscured partly is that the models can be seen, if not fully. The only change to the printed material would be to remove the reference to the LOS being interrupted by the terrain. Instead, the LOS could be said to be pointing at any part of the model (that can be seen), allowing your "Dragon Statue" to be considered Obscurement, but coming short of being considered as Cover. So, in as few words as I might try here, I'll say that "Cover has to be where the model is either inside of it or touching it as well as breaking the Line of Sight from the firing model. Otherwise, the terrain can only obscure or block Line of Sight."

How does that read out, ignoring Matt's already stated explanation of why it is the way it is :?:

Heck, I figure that since we can move our laser light pointers over to an open area Fire Zone, we can point at any part of an "Obscured" tank and fire as normal. As long as it's a "clear shot", it's not Cover (that being your main point).

 

[Major Chaos]

So you guys just want to go back to the old SST rules where you never get cover? One guy in the open so the whole unit is out of cover. One level higher than your target? No cover for them as well. Try a few games as it is written.

Don't put words in my mouth. I am a hardcore player that has been minature gaming for 20 years like many of us. These are some of the best 2 page rules I have ever played, but they are only 2 pages. I pray the Advanced rules don't muck all this up but right now this game does work.

Sorry you lost to LBH and all that Evil but I think you will get over it.

 

[tneva82]

So you guys just want to go back to the old SST rules where you never get cover? One guy in the open so the whole unit is out of cover. One level higher than your target? No cover for them as well. Try a few games as it is written.

So do you think options are "Bad option A, Bad option B"?

Why not go for Bad option A(BF:Evo ones) with bad features removed?

 

[Mr Evil]

lol i wasnt playing LBH and as it was we played the game to common sence on the whole. what i brought up was the fact that some people will exsploit such holes in the rules, lbh is a rules lawer but in his defence he plays with an element of fairness. but ive played people at tourneys that are not so fare or sensible as tourney points are more important that game play.

as for the game, LBH lost that one to a consise Shadow attack.

we play to center points for cover, this eliminates alot of problems, but opont can call an obscrued modle to be in cover if he feels its a hard shot to make, we dont play to win we play to see what happens and how different tactics flow.

 

[Major Chaos]

I do not think option A is bad. Sorry if i misunderstand Evil it just seems like that is what happened. I just do not see the loopholes you speak of. Playing with what is written does really work and works well. It just does not have every option and is pretty abstract right now. Which is good, it works stellar for Warmachine and Hordes.

 

[tneva82]

I just do not see the loopholes you speak of.

1mm thin stick that isn't even tall enough to reach halfway of challenger making tank immune to kill result isn't loophole?

Tank not getting cover when half of it is behind building? Or alternatively tank driving in the building(hey let's go to the fourth floor...Nice view there...)? Right.

 

[Paladin]

When you get your mits on the advanced rulebook, you will have everything you desire and more. . .

And the torture continues...

 

[The Legend]

can i add this as well

according to your rules

a wall is impassable so can only offer obscurment to a tank, while a park bench can offer a tank full cover !!!

This does seem a wee bit rediculous. Though I must say that I can see the ambiguity that the rules provide. I've played my first game on Tuesday using my lovely new PLA figures verses the USMC.

At one point in a replay that two of my other mates were playing a Type 99 was half an inch away from a building and had the whole engine blocked by the building. The turret was at 90 degrees to the hull facing an Abrams.

Now the Argument that followed was that the Tank was hull down and gained Cover (i.e +2 Target and +1 Kill), three of us agreed with this and one disagreed (rather a lot) saying that the majority of the tank was visible. Which I suppose it was.

But....

That would mean it's almost imposible for a Tank to gain Cover. Now I'm not saying that being able to touch Cover with a mud guard constitutes cover but I do think that It's more down to players being fair to each other with regard to rules.

I understand that this is not going to suit everyone as one of the players in my current games group is the worst Rules Lawyer I've ever met and will bend any rule to advantage. With regards to buildings, how do people judge these. Would they class as Cover? I agree with Matt too that these rules are meant as quick play to get us playing straight away and they do this very well.

I.E. For the purposes of LOS are any units within them only visible to within their size value in Inches or the Size value of the firing unit. Does this seem unfair?

Or

Can they be seen in a building only from a building that has openings on the aspect that the firing unit is firing from?