Tanks and cover.

[BuShips]

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

Sorry, I was on a roll :roll:.

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.

Exactly. I'm going to play "within" to mean "immersed". I don't see the two things as necessarily exclusive, so you probably won't run into it much. Play it the way you want to, but I do believe that there might be cases where a model could be considered "stuck in the mud with its arse hanging out in the breeze" :wink:.

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.

I'm sorry that you don't see that I was attempting to address the topic and was not spinning off elsewhere. If a good definition of Cover is not understood, then it becomes hard to discuss where movement across it is paid for. Matt had told us not to use percentages or the model's center for targeting calculations, but is now "unofficially" letting you decide what pleases you. Take from that whatever you wish to, but it does somewhat countermand what we'd been taught previously. Please do not read any negative emotion into my comments, for I want to only help things along. I just wish that Matt could have someone on Staff make up the kind of graphic aids that were in the SST rules. They helped very much to clarify Line of Sight text explanations.

 

[cordas]

I just wish that Matt could have someone on Staff make up the kind of graphic aids that were in the SST rules. They helped very much to clarify Line of Sight text explanations.

I am fairly sure we will get that in the advanced rules, (haven't seen the book so can't be certain). In an A3 rule sheet its difficult to find the space to put diagrams that are big enough to show anything really....

 

[cordas]

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.

Would it be possible to get a rule sheet / FAQ or an article in S & P outlining these differences? I am sure I ain't the only person who would much appreciate this.

Hmmm I think most of this should be self explanitory, currently there are no units in SST:Evo that could take advantage of the elevated shooting rule, just as there are no units in BF:Evo that can currently tunnel.

 

[BuShips]

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.....

Yes, at least it did when Matt told Mr Evil not to use percentages when calculating Line of Sight. A bunch of us reading the discussion between Matt and Mr Evil had to "unlearn" old gaming habits to begin to see how Matt's methods were to be used. Matt's "moment of weakness" recently has me ready to unravel what I had learned and just measure model dots again :roll:. And I was beginning to be a convert, too :wink:. Matt, buck it up man, lol.

 

[Shadow4ce]

Or perhaps Matt saw the futility of throwing marshamallows at a brick wall.

We players will either accept the rules as written, or change them via "house rules." I do not believe Matt's comments were de facto permission to do so as much as they were an admission he knows we will do so in direct contradiction of official rulings anyway. It is the nature of any miniature game due to scope and breadth of situations which will arise.

One person or company's idea of a good rule or interpretation of said rule is always going to be different from another's. I feel Matt just got tired of being the only person not pretending the Emperor was wearing new clothes. :wink:

Of course, I am now judging another's intent which makes me foolish.

BTW, for an intersting study on different viewpoints, go down to your local police station and request a copy of any accident report which has at least 5 different witness statements. Read them. Now try to tell me what happened. You will be amazed at the discrepencies in the statements. Our perspective is all that needs to change to see anything in a different way. Where you are, what experiences you've had prior, how you were raised to judge... All of these color the reality of our very existence, not just how we interpret BF:Evo rules. 8)

 

[MongooseMatt]

One person or company's idea of a good rule or interpretation of said rule is always going to be different from another's. I feel Matt just got tired of being the only person not pretending the Emperor was wearing new clothes. :wink:

You misunderstand me.

I _want_ you guys to develop your own house rules, field new units, try new things. They are part and parcel of this hobby, and to limit yourself to 'official' rules and units only is just. . . wrong. There has been far too much of this in miniatures gaming over the past few years, and if we can encourage a culture among Mongoose players to try new things of their own design, then I will feel we have achieved something important.

 

[Shadow4ce]

One person or company's idea of a good rule or interpretation of said rule is always going to be different from another's. I feel Matt just got tired of being the only person not pretending the Emperor was wearing new clothes. :wink:

You misunderstand me.

I _want_ you guys to develop your own house rules, field new units, try new things. They are part and parcel of this hobby, and to limit yourself to 'official' rules and units only is just. . . wrong. There has been far too much of this in miniatures gaming over the past few years, and if we can encourage a culture among Mongoose players to try new things of their own design, then I will feel we have achieved something important.

Cool, so I really can call in a Tomahawk missile and do 2xd100 damage to everything on my opponent's side of the board! Yay me! :lol:

Nah, I probably overstated my point Matt. I don't believe I misunderstood you at all, but after months of stating "Play the rules as they are written" the sudden comment of "develop your own house rules, field new units, try new things" on the surface seems like a departure from the past point of view.

The reality is what I was trying to get across - How I read the rules as written may be slightly different than how another person does. This is what I felt you intended all along, and why the "play them as they are written" mantra was used.

The true test of any game is if the core rules survive with enough consistancy anyone can play it anywhere and be close enough to have fun, without being so stifling the game plays out the same way every time.

I feel you have achieved this with BF:Evo. Well Done!

As far as "House Rules" go:

It all comes down to perspective, just as my little field trip challenge mentioned. (I am a law enforcement officer and let me tell you, witness statements at accidents are hysterical! Somehow a crash between a blue truck and a white car becomes a crash between a green van and a black motorcycle, amazing huh? Accidents happen faster than most folks can process, so by the time they get to write down what they saw, it becomes fuzzy).

The really good thing is our ability to communicate here, on these forums. I have already had one rule which I totally read differently than another member of this forum community whom I respect (The Old Soldier). After constructive dialog, involving yourself, LBH, and others too numerous to mention, I came to the realization I had read it wrong, and am actually glad, because the rule read the new way (for me) makes the game even more enjoyable.

Our ability to share ideas here and on fansites such as EvoCommand.com is what will help the community and the game grow and continue to be successful.

Thank you for not only creating the game, and providing this forum, but most especially for taking the time to participate in it with us. So many companys' employees ignore their loyal customers today it is pathetic! It is nice to know we are understood by the staff at Mongoose Publishing, who makes and enriches our hobby! 8)

*Salutes Matt and the Mongoose Publishing Staff*

 

[Chiwie]

I _want_ you guys to develop your own house rules, field new units, try new things. They are part and parcel of this hobby, and to limit yourself to 'official' rules and units only is just. . . wrong. There has been far too much of this in miniatures gaming over the past few years, and if we can encourage a culture among Mongoose players to try new things of their own design, then I will feel we have achieved something important.

that is one of the most awesome things I've heard in miniature wargaming in 8 years!

 

[cordas]

Cool, so I really can call in a Tomahawk missile and do 2xd100 damage to everything on my opponent's side of the board! Yay me! :lol:

Damn you stole my line.....

Nah, I probably overstated my point Matt. I don't believe I misunderstood you at all, but after months of stating "Play the rules as they are written" the sudden comment of "develop your own house rules, field new units, try new things" on the surface seems like a departure from the past point of view.

I think Matt is still saying play the rules as they are written, its just sometimes such as in this case whats written can mean different things to different people...

What does in terrain mean? Wether you talk about front facing, 50% or the entire model isn't clear, and really any are fine as long as you are consistant. Reading the rules literaly does encourage you to say entire model, but that will cause reality checks for a large number of players, and until the advanced rules come out some people will have huge problems with that.

In other cases, Matt is very adamant about sticking to exactly what is written in the rules. Look at the arguements that happened on the SST:Evo forum regarding Skinnies and Ambush in relation to the Shatter Rule. In that case Matt strove very hard to get us to understand his rule, as it actually matters to how the game plays, OK if we choose to use a different house rule I doubt he is going to come round and castigate us, or confiscate our rule sheets.... but he still wants us to play the rules given.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hi guys,

It comes down to this. . .

I want people to adapt and innovate their own rules.

However, if someone asks a rules question, or asks what I think, or when we run a tournament. . . the answer will always be, play the rules as written. That will always be the common denominator, the company line, as it were.

Any other way lies madness!

 

[BuShips]

Hi Matt,

One of the reasons (and probably the best reason) to have these forums is to allow for players to interact with each other and to test each of their own perspectives of a set of rules sold by MGP against those of other players, with the authors seeing how the masses are perceiving their work. Another primary reason for these forums is to get clarifications of rules from the authors. I would not expect you to answer all of the possible questions posed here or you would never get anything done and your company would stagnate. I also appreciate the time that you do spend "visiting" with us . Still, no matter how well anyone writes a set of rules there are still ambiguities that need tying down. For example, a declaritive expansion to your condition of "within terrain" could be placed into a BFE FAQ, taking care of terrain "border" issues. Those who play Victory at Sea for example play the rules as written but there is still an FAQ to go to for the players. It would take a little work, but even one for BFE that could explain with a few graphics what you explained to Mr Evil regarding Line of Sight would be helpful to those that did not follow that thread. Besides, that thread will not be on this forum for any great length of time to reference anyway. Maybe it is about time that a BFE FAQ could be pieced together using the questions that have appeared on the forum. It would go along way to helping the players out.

 

[Shadow4ce]

. Maybe it is about time that a BFE FAQ could be pieced together using the questions that have appeared on the forum. It would go along way to helping the players out.

Fantastic Idea! *Nods in support of this*

 

[Shadow4ce]

Hi guys,

It comes down to this. . .

I want people to adapt and innovate their own rules.

However, if someone asks a rules question, or asks what I think, or when we run a tournament. . . the answer will always be, play the rules as written. That will always be the common denominator, the company line, as it were.

Any other way lies madness!

QFT (Quoted for Truth). However, I would still recommend you change the writing when it comes to a MG's "Ready" action to include:

"A man-portable LMG (SAW & MINIMI Para, currently) can have it's facing changed as part of its Ready Action, but once set must take another Ready action to change facing again unless the model moves which breaks the weapons Ready state regardless."

Just my 2 cents on the biggest House Rule I've used to date. My house rule reads in it's entirety reads:

"Models smaller than size 2 have no facing except for Readied MGs which may have it's facing changed as part of its Ready Action, but once set must take another Ready action to change facing again unless the model moves which breaks the weapons Ready state regardless."

The reason I say smaller than size 2 is because this only refers to men currently and men can spin around very quickly (nigh instantaneous) to react to things around them. Should other models this size come out which cannot, I'll change it to read "Human Troops."

My other "house rule" deals with centering the fire zone of reaction fire upon the nearest model in the unit which caused the reaction. This is realistic to me as "Reaction Fire" is well, reactive. You can't take the time to plan a fire mission when reacting, and reacting to the nearest perceived threat of the unit which spawned the reaction is typical human behaviour. It also avoids exploiting this rule to attack a second or even third unit without a logical reason as to why. :wink:

Apologies for leaving original thread topic entirely here, but wanted to state this where it had become relevant to the last few posts.

 

[lastbesthope]

Have a good time at the tourney, and good luck!

Thanks, have you seen the results yet ?

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:

in such a situation, the model 'in' the terrain would not get the Cover bonus from being behind terrain (it isn't) and whether it got the Cover bonus from being 'within' the terrain would depend on your definition of within.

A good compromise I saw at the tourney, was, is the centre point in the terrain?

LBH

 

[BuShips]

Have a good time at the tourney, and good luck!

Thanks, have you seen the results yet ?LBH

Oh my, and you said that in such a soft and understated way, too! :lol:
Uh, yuppers, I did and congrats on the win!

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:

in such a situation, the model 'in' the terrain would not get the Cover bonus from being behind terrain (it isn't) and whether it got the Cover bonus from being 'within' the terrain would depend on your definition of within.

A good compromise I saw at the tourney, was, is the centre point in the terrain?

LBH

This all sounds fine by me. In my own personal games of BFE I will probably be using a version of "dot-2-dot" for LOS determinations as well, as I charted out back awhile in Mr Evil's photo-laden topic using his PLA-99 and the dragon terrain piece.

 

[The Legend]

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.

Ok mate I can understand your point, but the rules say this for a reason. Tanks are mobile units. They do use terrain to their advantage but generally they are slowed down by it because otherwise they rule supreme without any downsides. Keep your tanks away from terrain if you don't want to be slowed down. Easy really 8)

 

[cordas]

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.

Ok mate I can understand your point, but the rules say this for a reason. Tanks are mobile units. They do use terrain to their advantage but generally they are slowed down by it because otherwise they rule supreme without any downsides. Keep your tanks away from terrain if you don't want to be slowed down. Easy really 8)

Naa I will just leave them in the terrain and let my opponent come to me. With the Chally why shouldn't I? The idea to me seems to make it so that tanks and other vehicles will come out of terrain rather than stay in because coming out costs 2 - 3 move actions when it gets no cover bonus, just obscured sometimes.

 

[Mr Evil]

we often play that as long as your in contact to terrain that obscured part of your vehicle then you get cover, if not in contact then you just get obscurment.

reason is if infantry are firing from behind a wall you cant actualy be in the wall unless you ballance all the guys on top of the wall, wich seems daft, ie men behind wall only get onscurment while guys standing on said wall can claim full cover !!! some times the brain needs to take over where the rules cant fill the spaces.

also if nothing tecnicaly vital to the vehicle is what is giving it cover ie a wing mirror for exacmple then although the wing mirror is incover and making contact, and the reules would state the vehicle is in cover, we treat it as meing in the open as hidding a wing mirror isnt realy going to save you is it.

some times a little commons snece in obvouse situations should i feel override rules as writen.

 

[cordas]

So if its only a wing mirror in (or tail lights) then by your standing the vehicles movement score should not be halved. Again the same common sense ruling must apply.

My quibble isn't with making common sense rulings, its when people are saying that enough of the vehicle is out of terrain for it to loose cover, but then say enough of the same vehicle (in exactly the same position) is in terrain for it to qualify as having its movement halved.

Either it is within terrain or it isn't as far as I am concerned and given both the benefits and disadvantages that being in terrain give, depending on that judgement.

The next question is how do you make that judgement, and whilst 50% was my 1st idea, I am more and more in favour of using the edges of the vehicle as the determinator. I would also go as far as using what we do in other games, where the owning player states that it's either in or out; in any cases that might cause confusion. This should be stated when the vehicle is moved. i.e. When we move infantry on some of the terrain peices we use it can be very hard sometimes to put models on the edge, so we say that its moving to the edge but staying in, or its moved out of the terrain and is in the open.

 

[BuShips]

we often play that as long as your in contact to terrain that obscured part of your vehicle then you get cover, if not in contact then you just get obscurment.

Sure, that could work as long as it was discussed and agreed upon by the players before the game. Either that method, or the slightly more "terrain restrictive" solution of the location of the target model's center dot in relation to the terrain (also agreed upon before the game). Although it is less 'binary', I kind of like the idea of using Obscurement as a "grey area" surrounding dense terrain such as ruins or woods. It serves as a middle ground or interface as it were between Clear and Cover conditions . Even though Matt did not write the rules that way, it also shouldn't cause situations where disagreements could occur that Matt was attempting to evade with his more binary solution.

reason is if infantry are firing from behind a wall you cant actualy be in the wall unless you ballance all the guys on top of the wall, wich seems daft, ie men behind wall only get onscurment while guys standing on said wall can claim full cover !!! some times the brain needs to take over where the rules cant fill the spaces.

The rules are not daft here, as Matt wrote in how to use terrain that you cannot get inside of. The rules allow for ways to handle walls and hedges apart from ruins and woods. For a wall, you would use the rules text "A model has to be touching (on the opposite side of the terrain to the firing model)" to allow Cover to your infantry. I feel that this was written for the kind of terrain that troops cannot be truly 'within' but can use for Cover purposes. I see the last part of that rule text ("or within suitable terrain to take advantage of Cover.") for larger terrain areas such as ruins or woods. "Suitable" to me separates the larger terrain that you can actually enter from the short-depth type of terrain that you can crouch behind (but still touch), with the shooter on the other side of it. My version of "common sense" would say your troops get Cover if they stay on the other side of that wall, and are touching it. That same "common sense" of mine would say the troops jumping up on the wall lose Cover and at best get Obscurement :wink:. It's only when they die and my troops bury them after the battle under a pile of stones that came from the wall that I'd then grant them Cover :lol:.

also if nothing tecnicaly vital to the vehicle is what is giving it cover ie a wing mirror for exacmple then although the wing mirror is incover and making contact, and the reules would state the vehicle is in cover, we treat it as meing in the open as hidding a wing mirror isnt realy going to save you is it.

This of course differs from what Matt told us, but as long as the players agree it's all good . This is also as per Matt recently :wink:.

some times a little commons snece in obvouse situations should i feel override rules as writen.

I do not disagree with that, as long as all of the players are using the same 'common sense'. :lol: