Obscurment and cover

[The Legend]

May I also note that we initially got the Cover rules totally wrong. In that if a unit was in cover then they can be seen by everyone if they are within a number of inches equal to their size score (i.e. no +1 for obscurement and no +2/+1) and anyone further in was classed as in cover. :?

I must admit this made trees almost useless and only upon my rereading of the rules did I realise our really stupid mistake.

May I also add that this was not the rule as we played it in my afore mentioned post!

At least we've got it right now! :lol:

 

[BuShips]

I forgot where I was and posted much of this next stuff in LBH's thread in the Rulemasters, so I'm moving it here where it belongs.

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...".

I'd like to contribute a few things here that might be of some help that may assist in building up a guide for game rules discussions and that might help to clear things a bit. I'm really not offering new rules, but adding some defining terms that help (they helped me anyway). The only change is that both of Mr Evil's photo examples change to "Obscured", :wink: At least for me, it added more definition to what is written in the basic rules.

As a separate term that can be used alongside of LOS discussions, let me offer up the term "Field of View" (FOV) or perhaps "Field of Vision" (either is valid). In using FOV as an addition to LOS rules, you can describe what Matt is saying about moving from a Line of Sight perspective and into a view of the target model for consideration of targeting. Thus, a target model can be assessed for taking under fire from either LOS or FOV rules. In addition to qualifying under LOS, you can now use FOV to widen the terrain effects on shooting. The only difference between LOS and FOV is that while the firing model's measuring point still remains the center point of the model as in LOS, the FOV becomes a cone that fans out that can allow shooting that LOS would restrict or deny. This is what I can surmise from the discussions between Matt and Mr Evil with Matt's answers. The rules as written still make use of point to point measuring, but Matt is allowing with the Evolution rules a cone of fire that can target any viewable part of a model. So while using Mr Evil's photo above as an example, Matt is saying that the Field of View trumps the Line of Sight. Since the target model is in contact with the terrain, it can claim Cover. I'd like to see a slight change in this ruling because it would help with the experienced gamers in rationalising the shooting rules regarding terrain. I'd like to see Cover only applied using LOS along with the condition of being able to "tag" the terrain from behind it. I'm rather liking my term of "tagging" just now and will probably continue to use it in Evolution games as in "Hey, are you tagging that wall over there?" In my thinking of how to use Mr Evil's tank example, I'd say that while the model is being partially obscured in the FOV by the dragon terrain, the LOS is clear. I'd say that the model qualifies for Obscurement because the FOV is not 100% clear. Thus you could combine the "sight terms" and help to define shooting within terrain.

If the LOS to the target model and the FOV of the target model are both 100% unbroken, then the terrain to the target model is Clear.

If the LOS to the model is unbroken but the FOV is masked even 1%, then the terrain Obscures the target model, even if it is in contact with the terrain.

If the LOS to the target model is broken (thus breaking the FOV as well) but the model in not in contact with the terrain and also behind it from the POV of the firing model, the terrain Obscures the target model.

If the LOS to the target model is broken (thus breaking the FOV as well) but the model is in contact with the terrain and is also behind it from the POV of the firing model, the terrain offers the target model Cover. Additionally, if the target model is inside of terrain (such as ruins or woods) it can always claim Cover.

If the LOS to the target model and the FOV of the target model are both 100% masked, then the terrain to the target model is Blocked.

I've just tried to add some helpful terms alongside LOS. I've already tossed in "POV" (Point of View of course, but in this case I'm not meaning 'opinion'). Another acronym as long as I'm at it would be DOF (for Depth of Field), as Matt is really using that in helping to define Cover terrain. I'm surprised that I don't have a headache, but really writing this up is helping me to think this over and make sense of it.
My contribution would not really drastically change the game or the rules as written, but just add a little "tweak" to those rules that would make the game just as playable as Matt (&Co.) has intended but at the same time "suck in" the Cover rules to a more sensible usage. Clear descriptions can be made in the game thus with my suggestion of using POV, FOV LOS and even DOF. BTW, this makes me ask, "Does this make any sense to any of you?" I'm genuinely curious.

 

[docrailgun]

While I applaud the efforts to fix what people see as "loopholes" or the like, I think we ought to wait for the main rulebook before we start rewriting the rules.
These basic rules are just that... basic. Let's keep them that way, as not everyone that will be playing this game will be a hardcore wargamer.

 

[BuShips]

While I applaud the efforts to fix what people see as "loopholes" or the like, I think we ought to wait for the main rulebook before we start rewriting the rules.
These basic rules are just that... basic. Let's keep them that way, as not everyone that will be playing this game will be a hardcore wargamer.

My experience has shown that if you don't contribute ideas before a book is published that might have flaws that could have been cleared up and thus made better by it, all you do is increase the errata that has to be published later, imho. The Advanced Rulebook is still months away (both for playing with as well as for possible improvements that might be added), so I'd like some input from the designer. I would think that is what these Forums are partly for maybe, as this has been already shown by the kind participation of Matt. I appreciate your comments, as well.

 

[lastbesthope]

While I applaud the efforts to fix what people see as "loopholes" or the like, I think we ought to wait for the main rulebook before we start rewriting the rules.
These basic rules are just that... basic. Let's keep them that way, as not everyone that will be playing this game will be a hardcore wargamer.

I'm with you to an extent, but for people that don't have or won't get the Advanced Rules, the basic rules should be clear or be clarified.

LBH

 

[docrailgun]

Let me start by saying that I'm not disparaging your comments, or your well-intentioned desire to make improvements. There's always room for improvement, and having fans excited enough about a game shows that the game is a success (at least intellectually, if not yet financially). I'm also glad that the Mongoose folks are willing to hear what we have to say and to respond.
I'm not sure, however, that there's much we can do to change a book that will come out in early May, that only being two months from now. Surely the books have to be in a print queue longer than that. Further, you're asking for major revisions rather than just correcting of stats or typographic errors.
I'm still of the opinion (obviously in the minority) that there needs to be a simple version of the rules... the prepainted and non-random packaging aspects of this game (it seems to me) to be more interesting to casual gamers or people like me with no time to paint (anymore) than the hardcore hobbyist who (tends to) sneer at the very idea of pre-painted miniatures. <note... I am not suggesting that anyone here is like that!> I think that the more casual gamer is probably not terribly interested in a massively-detailed rule set. If a simple set ends up not being perfect, some people would rather trade a slight imperfection for ease of use. I'm certainly willing to put up with slighly imperfectly-painted BFE miniatures in exchange for the time I would spend slapping paint on some Sisters of Battle.
All that being said, of course if we can make the game better, we ought to try to do so. I'm just suggesting that a massive rewrite of the game at this point may well be a disaster.

My experience has shown that if you don't contribute ideas before a book is published that might have flaws that could have been cleared up and thus made better by it, all you do is increase the errata that has to be published later, imho. The Advanced Rulebook is still months away (both for playing with as well as for possible improvements that might be added), so I'd like some input from the designer. I would think that is what these Forums are partly for maybe, as this has been already shown by the kind participation of Matt. I appreciate your comments, as well.

 

[BuShips]

Let me start by saying that I'm not disparaging your comments, or your well-intentioned desire to make improvements. There's always room for improvement, and having fans excited enough about a game shows that the game is a success (at least intellectually, if not yet financially). I'm also glad that the Mongoose folks are willing to hear what we have to say and to respond.
I'm not sure, however, that there's much we can do to change a book that will come out in early May, that only being two months from now. Surely the books have to be in a print queue longer than that. Further, you're asking for major revisions rather than just correcting of stats or typographic errors.
I'm still of the opinion (obviously in the minority) that there needs to be a simple version of the rules... the prepainted and non-random packaging aspects of this game (it seems to me) to be more interesting to casual gamers or people like me with no time to paint (anymore) than the hardcore hobbyist who (tends to) sneer at the very idea of pre-painted miniatures. <note... I am not suggesting that anyone here is like that!> I think that the more casual gamer is probably not terribly interested in a massively-detailed rule set. If a simple set ends up not being perfect, some people would rather trade a slight imperfection for ease of use. I'm certainly willing to put up with slighly imperfectly-painted BFE miniatures in exchange for the time I would spend slapping paint on some Sisters of Battle.
All that being said, of course if we can make the game better, we ought to try to do so. I'm just suggesting that a massive rewrite of the game at this point may well be a disaster.

Yes, I really have no issue personally with your comments; we just each have a different viewpoint :wink:. I'd like very much at least to see Matt take a look at my perspective and although (as you said) it would require a change, it becomes a compromise within the existing rules and (I believe) offers improvement in clarity of how things could work. To me, it doesn't add any new complexity; if anything, it should add a very exactly defined usage of what is "Line of Sight" and how that would differ from a viewing of the model itself, as view of the model is also now included in the core rules of all of the Evolution rule systems. That has to be very carefully kept separate from measurements of Line of Sight as the two things are not the same. By using the two terms ("Line of Sight" and "Field of View") in combination, a very clear set of rules can be used between game units and how they interact with the table terrain. It has the advantage that it works a bit better for the "experienced" existing players of war games, but is so well defined that it should be easily picked up by the "new crop" of more casual gamers that this pre-painted style of models will be adding to the hobby. Unless those books are already printed, a few well chosen added words and a piece of graphics (it sure doesn't have to be what I made up) would improve the product and tighten up the ambiguities, of which a few remain. Time will only tell as to whether anyone will be using my offered additional descriptions, or not. Remember, my content does not drastically affect the rules, but rather pushes the players just a bit more to desiring hugging their model center-point in behind terrain only for one effect, and that's "Cover". It also helps to define how Field of View is used when seeing any part of a model on the table, and how that defines "Obscurement". Thus, it really doesn't change the existing rules so much as it supports them, imho.

 

[Major Chaos]

I'm with you to an extent, but for people that don't have or won't get the Advanced Rules, the basic rules should be clear or be clarified.

LBH

Actually the rules are clear. The problem is not that the rules are obscure it is that many of us would have the rules be different. These rules are very simplistic right now and will get more complex when we see the advanced rules. I myself find the rules a little lacking when using many complex types of terrain. It seems to work best with woods and ruins and hills right now.

If I had my change to add to the book it would be the removal of any reference to the center dot at all. All distances can be measured from base to base or from the weapon in the case of vehicles.

 

[BuShips]

I'm with you to an extent, but for people that don't have or won't get the Advanced Rules, the basic rules should be clear or be clarified.

LBH

Actually the rules are clear. The problem is not that the rules are obscure it is that many of us would have the rules be different. These rules are very simplistic right now and will get more complex when we see the advanced rules. I myself find the rules a little lacking when using many complex types of terrain. It seems to work best with woods and ruins and hills right now.

If I had my change to add to the book it would be the removal of any reference to the center dot at all. All distances can be measured from base to base or from the weapon in the case of vehicles.

Even though you were answering LBH, I'll add that your comments are good as well. Matt had said to Mr Evil somewhere back in here that Mongoose wasn't wanting to place a dot on the models, and that hinted that he was moving away from the center dot. But in these new rules the center point of a model is still used in LoS measurements. Part of my point was that he was mixing the two concepts and adding model visibility (of any part) in as well. I went back and forth a bit with tneva82 until it struck me that he was defining Line of Sight as both the model's center as well as using it for view of the model, which I had already begun to break apart in trying to understand Mr Evil's complaints to Matt. I can also understand your way of thinking too (using no dots), and Matt could have written it that way as well but did not, although he headed that way a lot. That's what Matt has been wrestling with in making up the new set of rules. You are correct Major Chaos that the rules work, but as long as Mongoose is leaving the center dot in with the mix of rules, then why not use it to help define a much better definition of Cover (which has been my angle)? I'll drop my rant now unless it stirs up again( :lol: ), but most has been said that needed saying. If Matt thinks that he's got all of these issues covered in the Advanced Rulebook, then I'll be very happy and I won't be the only one that is . My only gripe was a little like Mr Evil's and saw that tank of his in the photo as nothing that should qualify as Cover. :shock: