Obscurment and cover

[Mr Evil]

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 ?

ok i understand the rules as writen but the theory behind it just sits realy ugly with me personaly, it just doesnt feel right for game looks or mechanics.

is it just me that the above example is perfectly fine and acceptable to give tank with marginal point of it self touching cover that the entire tank is classed as in cover ?

 

[Sgt. Brassones]

In real life being in cover is known as 'hull down', meaning only the turret is visible. I would use this to describe being in cover, basically half the tank ( or close to it) can't be seen and the tank is touching the cover. The exception would be if the tank is in a wood or ruins, etc. Then the tank would have to be within the area which constitutes the cover.

 

[Mr Evil]

i agre sgt, but the rules state the example above, to me this doese not feel right. and seems injust

 

[Locutus9956]

I would say common sense would have to play a reasonable part in assessing cover vs concealment.

 

[Mr Evil]

i agree again locus, but mat has stated the example above would be correct use of the rules. wich to mee seems stupid, and designed for rules lawers to win games rather than good tactics, and a great looking game that relies on common sence over rules extrapulations.

they realy should look into this as this one rule could loose a few gamers interest long term, its already got me considering is this the game for me after all. just feels unplayteted fully.

all it needs to be is that the over a 1/4 (25%) of the vehicle could be hidden.

games should favour the agressor not the defender as agressive games play with more flare than defensive games.

 

[Locutus9956]

Well as much as I appreciate his efforts, Matts rulings have at times in the past for both evo and ACTA bordered on the insane and personally Im inclined to ignore them and go with what makes sense amongs my local group.

In the example above for example, Id consider the first example obscured, fair enough, its not actually 'in' cover as such.

The second example though I wouldnt call ANYTHING. I'd call that a clear shot as you can see pretty much the entire tank.

 

[MongooseMatt]

all it needs to be is that the over a 1/4 (25%) of the vehicle could be hidden.

But how do you define and quantify that? The use of cover is the single most hotly contested issue across free movement miniatures games. The original SST rules were an attempt to eliminate arguments along this vein, and they achieved a great deal. By introducing a 'binary' state for cover, there can be no argument, leaving you to get on with the game itself.

Of course, should you and your opponent agree a different system before the game begins, we won't come banging on your door!

 

[Mr Evil]

you answered the problem yourself but ignored the answer ages ago.

center point, the bit you measure from, if center point is visable throught the entire modle then no cover can be claimed.

ie only see turret then center point on the body isnt visable so cover can be claimed.

example above center line can be drawn through all parts in los so cover cant be claimed.

very simple way of doing it. and totaly over looked.

 

[MongooseMatt]

very simple way of doing it. and totaly over looked.

It really wasn't (I swear, people think rules systems are thrown together over night!).

Unless we had a red dot on every miniature, arguments again arise over centre points - we've seen it in other games we have brought out.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

in example 2, I'd personally take line of sight into account - because the target tank only has a small amount of cover from the firing one, I'd rule in a demo or tournament I was running that it's got obscured at best. if the attacker was a few inches to the right, then you'd have a better arguement for cover.

the way I look at it is that you get cover from being IN a terrain piece, or having cover directly between you and the attacker.

 

[Mr Evil]

2nd way of doing it

if at 50% take vehicle size and divide by 50% so a size 4 vehicle must have 2" of it in cover to claim cover

or 25% take vehicle siaze and divide by 4 so a size 4 vehicle must have 1" within cover to claim cover

easy and argument avoiding., and maintains some realism.

you have center point rule and you have the size score stat both usable for cover rules.

god you could do on the size one at 50% its +2target and +1 kill and at 25%-49% its +1 target and +1 kill.

that would feel real good.

 

[MongooseMatt]

god you could do on the size one at 50% its +2target and +1 kill and at 25%-49% its +1 target and +1 kill.

You want to make a difference between 49% and 50%?

 

[Mr Evil]

in example 2, I'd personally take line of sight into account - because the target tank only has a small amount of cover from the firing one, I'd rule in a demo or tournament I was running that it's got obscured at best. if the attacker was a few inches to the right, then you'd have a better arguement for cover.

the way I look at it is that you get cover from being IN a terrain piece, or having cover directly between you and the attacker.

but in a tourney against a rules lawer example 2 makes it imposable to kill a challenger wich is plain stupid.

we ahve found the cover rules totaly inbalance the challenger.

 

[MongooseMatt]

but in a tourney against a rules lawer example 2 makes it imposable to kill a challenger wich is plain stupid.

Umm, it doesn't - you move a few inches to the left to get a clear shot. This is an intentional effect, as it brings movement into the game. . .

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

in example 2, I'd personally take line of sight into account - because the target tank only has a small amount of cover from the firing one, I'd rule in a demo or tournament I was running that it's got obscured at best. if the attacker was a few inches to the right, then you'd have a better arguement for cover.

the way I look at it is that you get cover from being IN a terrain piece, or having cover directly between you and the attacker.

but in a tourney against a rules lawer example 2 makes it imposable to kill a challenger wich is plain stupid.

we ahve found the cover rules totaly inbalance the challenger.

But I'd be FAR more likely to be running the tourney if there was one on here and I'd rule against the rules lawyer in that situation

 

[Mr Evil]

god you could do on the size one at 50% its +2target and +1 kill and at 25%-49% its +1 target and +1 kill.

You want to make a difference between 49% and 50%?

yes simple infact this is my 7 year old daughters idea

say you need to be 2" in cover to claim the full cover but you measure and its such a face puller cuz its just under the line for 2" then bam its +1 instead of +2 problem resolved as on a fine line argument the agreesor gets advantage.

 

[Mr Evil]

but in a tourney against a rules lawer example 2 makes it imposable to kill a challenger wich is plain stupid.

Umm, it doesn't - you move a few inches to the left to get a clear shot. This is an intentional effect, as it brings movement into the game. . .

to negate the effect in example 2 agressor needs to move a min of 15" in wich time the enemy tank needs to move 1" to negate all that movement

white tank represents after the 15" move (yes ive actualy exsperimented) how sad am i.

yes tank could forward and shoot, but that is not the point the point is that a corner touching terrain gives cover from an amazingly wide angle.

 

[Major Chaos]

So you are basicly trying to say that in the above example you have no chance of hitting the statue with the shot from the green tank? I think this illustrates Matt's point perfectly. Quite a bit of the target tank is actually hidden.

I like tha fact the rules are simple. I think this is juat a case of the first units out having an advantage by the absence of variety. When several units on the table have anti tank capacity it won't be so safe to just park in a tiny peice of cover. Then it will be necessary to move. Which there is another thread complaining no one does that!

 

[Hiromoon]

*looks a little confused*

It looks like the green tank can get a clean shot on the front arch of the Type 99 quiet easilly.... What am I missing here?

 

[Galactic Fatt Patt]

What I think the problem is...
We have rules for horizontal terrain. i.e. bushes, a road block, a blown up car,etc.
We are trying to apply these rules to vertical terrain. i.e. corners of buildings.
We came up with a way to handle it for now. If you can see center to center while up against a building you only get obscured, if you can't see the center, than you have cover. Kind of goes with your 50% idea.

Personally, I think they need to clarify in the rules what vertical corners count as for the purpose of tourney's.