Tanks and cover.

[cordas]

How far do tanks (or any vehicle for that matter) need to come out of cover before they no longer benefit from cover? Also how does this tally up with reduced movement?

For a game we had last weekend we decided that a tank must be at least 50% in cover to gain the cover bonus, and as soon as it was at least 50% out of cover it could move freely.

 

[tiepilot1138]

The rules say "A model has to be touching (on the opposite side of the terrain to the firing model) or within suitable terrain to take advantage of Cover."
The way I understood the rules, if it's on the attacker's side of cover, and not completely in, it's only obscured. If you can see the unit with no obstructions because it poked out of cover(cover is actually behind it at this point), it's fair game.

 

[127th Angry Angels]

This seems to be dependent on who your playing.....

 

[cordas]

The rules say "A model has to be touching (on the opposite side of the terrain to the firing model) or within suitable terrain to take advantage of Cover."
The way I understood the rules, if it's on the attacker's side of cover, and not completely in, it's only obscured. If you can see the unit with no obstructions because it poked out of cover(cover is actually behind it at this point), it's fair game.

If a tank has its movement reduced because its in cover... then its in cover isn't it?

The rule states that to gain cover you only have to be in terrain capable of providing cover. The rule also states that when you are in terrain your movement is halfed.

By comparing these two rules it should also follow that untill you are free to move you are still classed as being in cover, for infantry this really doesn't cause that much of an issue as the bases are less than 1 inch across. We have a house rule that says if you stop on the edge of terrain (a wood for example) that the owning player either says they have stopped just out or just in. The decision is the owning players and all rules benefits/ disadvantages follow from that.

However for tanks and other vehicles this causes an issue as they are considerably bigger than 1 inch, and it seems daft that the last segment of track and tail lights are in woods (hence causing halved movement) that the tank can still claim cover. So common sense steps in and says that that can't work, also the tank could just turn (as turning is free) itself out of the terrain and then move freely.... (although this could / should cause cries of foul play.)

If you say well thats partly out of cover, so can be shot freely (or obscured) but still demand that until the vehicle is free of the terrain at the start of its action before it can move freely (as far as I am aware all tanks are more than 1/2 their movement long, the Chally is a lot longer than 3.5inches), then it will take 2 move actions for it to get out of cover, during which time it gets no benefit beyond possible obscurement but still has its movement halved....

Hmmm this is a recipe for tanks never moving out of cover....

 

[tiepilot1138]

Hmm... good point with the movement and all. Is this more of a cover/concealment issue with regards to movement, or a difficult terrain issue? While moving out of a stand of trees I could see the terrain granting cover, but if you were crossing an obstacle (like a wall or barricade), the terrain shouldn't provide cover once you're over it. If anything, you're slowed down and still out in the open as you get bogged down on the terrain. Might require a house rule until the official word comes down.

 

[cordas]

Hmm... good point with the movement and all. Is this more of a cover/concealment issue with regards to movement, or a difficult terrain issue? While moving out of a stand of trees I could see the terrain granting cover, but if you were crossing an obstacle (like a wall or barricade), the terrain shouldn't provide cover once you're over it. If anything, you're slowed down and still out in the open as you get bogged down on the terrain. Might require a house rule until the official word comes down.

Assuming the terrian is less than 1 inch tall (thats a 5 foot wall or so) then the tank can just drive straight through / over it, unless it stops just behind it in which case it can claim cover from it. I think the answer lies in answering both questions together, too consider them seperatly is going to make it difficult to get an answer that satisfies both.

I must admit I still like the original rule we came up with in game, can anyone see anything wrong with it, or anyway to improve it?

A vehicle must be at least 50% in cover to gain the cover bonus and have its movement score halved, and as soon as it was at least 50% out of cover it can move freely, but can't claim cover (it is either clear, obscured or not a target due to blocked LOS).

 

[BuShips]

How far do tanks (or any vehicle for that matter) need to come out of cover before they no longer benefit from cover? Also how does this tally up with reduced movement?

For a game we had last weekend we decided that a tank must be at least 50% in cover to gain the cover bonus, and as soon as it was at least 50% out of cover it could move freely.

Alright, let me first break something apart that you are describing under one "umbrella" that is really two separate topics. "Cover" in your question isn't a category of terrain, but more of something that is seen from the perspective of an enemy model that is taking a shooting action at you. Now before you get defensive :wink:, I do not think that you really believe this, but it could be viewed by others reading your question as it was worded. If I were to answer your first question as you literally worded it, if they are out of Cover, they cannot benefit from it of course :roll:. I think what you really meant to say was "How far do tanks (or any vehicle for that matter) need to come out of terrain before they no longer benefit from cover?" Using the understanding that I now have pounded into my dense skull :lol:. Determining Cover from the rules as written for a tank behind a wall is easy. If the Line of Sight to the target model (not its center point) is broken at all, the target model has Cover. Drawing from that clear example, if the tank comes out from within the woods or ruins (let's say 'woods' from now on in my example) and crosses the outer "edge" of the woods (ideally a cut-felt or other well-defined table area regardless of what trees or buildings are upon it), I would feel that like in the example of a wall the tank is no longer getting Cover but could get Obscurement.

Your second question is "Also how does this tally up with reduced movement?" and I would say that as much as Matt has attempted to write out ambiguities this hasn't been covered in the rules. All players would need to discuss before playing whether to use the center of all of the models (which is what you did) or to use the leading edge of the model (which is what is used to determine Cover on a targeted model). If you use the model center for movement (like you did), you would still be under 1/2 movement even after you lost your Cover bonus, because the two conditions are separated by half of the model's length. If you were to use the leading edge of the model for movement, the moment that the tank moved from Cover it would also be able to use full movement. This has not been specifically addresed in the rules, so until an official ruling was read I'd agree between players what to use. Maybe from my previous comments here you might have noticed that your last comment of "For a game we had last weekend we decided that a tank must be at least 50% in cover to gain the cover bonus, and as soon as it was at least 50% out of cover it could move freely." was not really playing the rules the way that Matt has written them. You are however playing them the way that wargamers have mostly played in past games and that Matt has thought left too many loose ends with games that do not use hexes. While "common sense" would place a "more than half / less than half" of the model as a good solution, the condition of Cover is defined differently with BFE. As an offsetting balance, Matt is alowing models to be shot at under conditions that with other rules would have them hidden from sight and thus attack. I would like a ruling on how Matt would like us to use models and movement, although it's not crucial as long as all players in a specific game are playing it the same between them. :wink:

 

[cordas]

I can accept the arguement of using the front edge, to me thats actually makes the most sense (sort of what our center point did) but just better really.

The arguement I don't accept that a tank can still be in terrain (as in it is having its movement halved), but not gain the benefits of being in terrain when it comes to cover. I get your reading of this, my problem with this is from a purely gaming point of view. Why would you come out of cover.... its going to take too long to get out to do any good, all you are doing is making yourself a vunerable target for a benefit (being manoveurable) at least 1 turn (probably 2) after you started moving, more if you stop to shoot in the mean time. That is unless you do the cheesy turning trick to swing the back end out.

I now think, just using the leading (or enemy facing) edge for deciding wether you are in cover or not, and the same for movement. Turning is not affected by soft terrain such as woods or wooden buildings, but is restricted by hard terrain such as stone buildings or cliff edges for example.

 

[lastbesthope]

MAtt made rulings on Cover, if part of the model, no matter how small, is obscured by passable or impassable terrain, then the model gats the benefit of cover.

As for being within terrain, the rules clearly state that a model within terrain may always claim cover rather than obscured line of sight.

LBH

 

[cordas]

So if its just the tail lights of the tank in cover it can claim cover.... It makes as much sense as a lot of other rules, such as in FOW you can have towed guns visible, but can't be shot unless the towing vehicle can be seen...

The rules are just an abstract to make the game playable, and there is nothing to stop us coming up with a house rule that is more astheticaly pleasing... as long as its consistant and fair.

 

[lastbesthope]

Make house rulings by all means, I just make a point of keeping up to date on official rulings, especially since I'm playing in a Mongoose tournament.

LBH

 

[The Old Soldier]

The model has to be touching cover. Yes got that. Does seem odd. If say a tank is in partial cover (the front of the tank is Not, but say the back half is.), and has Line of Sight draw to the front facing from a RPG in range would you give the tank cover?

I wouldn't, if firing on the front facing, but I would if firing from the side or rear if in cover.

Since I doubt there will be much tourney action in my part of the woods, I would go with a house rule.

 

[BuShips]

I can accept the arguement of using the front edge, to me thats actually makes the most sense (sort of what our center point did) but just better really.

The arguement I don't accept that a tank can still be in terrain (as in it is having its movement halved), but not gain the benefits of being in terrain when it comes to cover. I get your reading of this, my problem with this is from a purely gaming point of view. Why would you come out of cover.... its going to take too long to get out to do any good, all you are doing is making yourself a vunerable target for a benefit (being manoveurable) at least 1 turn (probably 2) after you started moving, more if you stop to shoot in the mean time. That is unless you do the cheesy turning trick to swing the back end out.

I now think, just using the leading (or enemy facing) edge for deciding wether you are in cover or not, and the same for movement. Turning is not affected by soft terrain such as woods or wooden buildings, but is restricted by hard terrain such as stone buildings or cliff edges for example.

Yes, you noticed that I used the term "leading edge" when I might have used "the edge closest to an enemy shooting model" to be more accurate or just perhaps the rules' own words of "on the opposite side of the terrain to the firing model". I was trying to keep it simple, you know :wink:. You don't have to have a problem with a tank in terrain getting Cover as long as it keeps all of its "edges" inside of the outer boundary of the terrain area. That should describe the model as "within terrain" for Cover purposes. If the model was outside of but still touching the boundary of the woods and the firing model was on the side opposite of the target model from the woods you would still get Obscurement until the tank was entirely clear of touching the wooded area, so that would also help if you wanted to egress that terrain area. I can deal with the game term of "within suitable terrain" but would like just a little more said officially that would nail it down for sure.

 

[BuShips]

OK, I only saw LBH's answers to cordas after I posted my last comments. I hope that I'm not going down the same road as I did in the recent Rulesmasters thread , but I'm reading the same sheet as LBH has, and I do not see where terrain gives Cover everywhere that Obscurement does in regards to terrain. Yes, I see the part where LBH if answering me would quote "Models, if within terrain, may always claim Cover rather than just have an obscured Line of Sight." That cannot really be saying that everywhere you have Obscured Line of Sight you can claim Cover, or else why would there also be the quote "Otherwise, the terrain can only obscure or block Line of Sight (see above)." What I read from the rules is that the target model must be within the terrain. That is different from "touching" the terrain. So my reading of the rules and separate from any ruling from Matt which I have not been privy to gives me the impression that the target model must be within the terrain to get Cover. Yes, there could could be different takes on what is defined as "within" but my definition means "enveloped" by said terrain and not on its edge or touching its edge. You would have to read carefully to separate the two different topics that are covered within the single sentence of "A model has to be touching (on the opposite side of the terrain to the firing model) or within suitable terrain to take advantage of Cover." Look at how the meaning changes once you ignore the words in parentheses: "A model has to be touching or within suitable terrain to take advantage of Cover." I do not believe that last sentence is the intent of what the longer stated rule really is meaning. Either that, or I need a refresher lesson in reading English :wink:. What I'm saying is that words have meanings and Matt is really trying hard to have a well thought-out set of unambiguous rules for entertaining play. One way to use the rules to allow a tank partially removed from the "woods" to get Cover even with my reading would be if the target model was on the other side of the woods from the firing model (or on the sides as TOS stated). That even fits my reading and understanding. Where I see a difference is a target model that has its "tail lights" in the woods (like cordas said) while openly facing the firing model. I can pull from the rules text a way to say that The Old Soldier's excellent logic and common sense can be made to fit the rules and not be an abstract ruling with another outcome. Since the target model is not on the reverse side of the woods (and either within it or touching it from the outside) and is not within the terrain as viewed by the firing model, it should not be allowed Cover. The terrain can only obscure or block Line of Sight, as the rules do indeed state. If that is not the case, then why are those words used in the text and what event do they describe that is different from this? Understand please that no one should be perceiving this as an argument but just as an effort to pound some additional and correct understanding of the rules into my dense noggin. :wink: The key to my understanding of this is viewing several different relative positions of three components, target model, firing model, and where the terrain is in relation to the previous two. If you were to think of a stand of trees being a perfect circle, then read my previous ramblings here and maybe someone other than I might see my point of view. I would allow a target model Cover that was outside of and touching the woods but only if those woods were between the two models in question. If those woods were a "lazy susan" and drug the target model with it, it would be downgraded from Cover to Obscurement as soon as it came into view of the firing model "from around the curve". Of course photos would be better to show this, but maybe I've described it good enough for the excellent minds (not mine) that inhabit these forums. :wink:

 

[lastbesthope]

OK, Buships, long post and I need to leave for the tourney like 5 mins ago but here goes. Apologies if I missed a point you made.

If you're within terrain, you're in Cover.

If you're touching the opposite side of terrain from the shooter, it also grants you the cover Bonus.

I'll firther clarify when I get back tonight if need be.

Now back to my regularly scheduled wake up tune sponsored by Meat Loaf.

LBH

 

[cordas]

Argh Buships, please use paragraphs.... I hate reading long lumps of text like that :twisted: :wink:

I think it comes down to what is defined by the term within terrain, my arguement is that if a vehicle has its movement halved because it is within terrain, then surely it is within terrain with regard to cover.

Surely it can't be one but not the other.

Forget the touching cover and obscurement as thats a seperate arguement and I think we all know the answers to that, or if your not sure then start a new topic about that question . I am just looking for an answer to the within terrain question.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I would like a ruling on how Matt would like us to use models and movement, although it's not crucial as long as all players in a specific game are playing it the same between them. :wink:

I would like you to use the models in a way that gives you the most fun

Seriously, if you want to play with the 50% rule, or anything similar, you have my blessing. You can even do so in a tournament if you wish, and your opponent agrees - quite happy with that too. However, if anyone _asks_ me during such a game, the answer will always be 'play the rules as written.'

The Evo rules system had several objectives, chief among them;

1. Provide a rules system that could be used across multiple genres.
2. Provide a 'hefty' wargame with many tactical options, rather than the lightweight rules often seen in similar packages. Basically, provide what most people would recognise as a 'proper' wargame, not a glorified boardgame.
3. Do all of this on two sides of A3, in a manner that eradicates as much potential argument between players as possible.

This, I believe, we have accomplished. Now, if players want to add their own rules and units, I think that is great! You may violate one of the points given above in doing so, but then all you need to worry about is how you play the game in your own group (we had to worry about how it would play across the world ).

 

[cordas]

I would like you to use the models in a way that gives you the most fun

Fun for whom.... after some of the dice rolls I have had against me I would take great pleasure in placing my opponents models in places he wouldn't enjoy.... :twisted:

Seriously, if you want to play with the 50% rule, or anything similar, you have my blessing. You can even do so in a tournament if you wish, and your opponent agrees - quite happy with that too. However, if anyone _asks_ me during such a game, the answer will always be 'play the rules as written.'

The Evo rules system had several objectives, chief among them;

1. Provide a rules system that could be used across multiple genres.
2. Provide a 'hefty' wargame with many tactical options, rather than the lightweight rules often seen in similar packages. Basically, provide what most people would recognise as a 'proper' wargame, not a glorified boardgame.
3. Do all of this on two sides of A3, in a manner that eradicates as much potential argument between players as possible.

This, I believe, we have accomplished. Now, if players want to add their own rules and units, I think that is great! You may violate one of the points given above in doing so, but then all you need to worry about is how you play the game in your own group (we had to worry about how it would play across the world ).

I don't think the 50% or enemy facing rule actually goes against the rule sheet, they are just clarifications that make more asthetic sense to some players.....

Given the rules are on 1 sheet of A3, and despite the arguements I / We have had over them I think MGP can give themselves a big pat on the back, they aren't perfect but you have done a bloody good job. Just can't wait to get the advanced rules

One question about the advanced rules, are they going to vary between game systems, could we use the advanced rules for BF:Evo for SST:Evo? Well apart the obvious stuff such as special rules for special units / armies such as the tunneling rule for bugs.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Fun for whom.... after some of the dice rolls I have had against me I would take great pleasure in placing my opponents models in places he wouldn't enjoy.... :twisted:

That would be a house rule. . .

One question about the advanced rules, are they going to vary between game systems, could we use the advanced rules for BF:Evo for SST:Evo? Well apart the obvious stuff such as special rules for special units / armies such as the tunneling rule for bugs.

Where possible, they will remain the same, where necessary, they will change. For example, terrain and movement stay the same, air units stay the same, as do structures. However, rules for attacking armoured units from elevated positions are in BF Evo, but not SST. Tunnelling is in SST but not BF Evo.

 

[BuShips]

OK, Buships, long post and I need to leave for the tourney like 5 mins ago but here goes. Apologies if I missed a point you made.

If you're within terrain, you're in Cover.

If you're touching the opposite side of terrain from the shooter, it also grants you the cover Bonus.

I'll firther clarify when I get back tonight if need be.

Now back to my regularly scheduled wake up tune sponsored by Meat Loaf.

LBH

Have a good time at the tourney, and good luck! I've no problem with anything you said, as I've read that from the sheet and understand it fine. I do wish that you would take a close look at the second segment, under Cover however. Reading the sentence "A model has to be touching..." along with its special qualifier within parentheses would indicate that Cover would not be granted to a target model that was partially within the terrain (with its tail lights) if the firing model was on the opposite side of the target model furthest from the terrain. First, it doesn't qualify as "within" the terrain and even though it is touching the terrain perimeter the target would be on the wrong side of it to be behind it. That's all that I wanted you to think about. :wink: