View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 19th, 2017, 10:44 pm



Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Beta: Let's Talk Stealth 
Author Message
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: September 9th, 2012, 1:25 am
Posts: 316
Location: Australia
Cover is my major bug bear. Fixing the cover rules will largely fix Stealth, because it depends on the cover rules to work.

The following 2 pictures highlight the issue;
Image
Image

If the BDC models had Stealth only the one behind the barricade would benefit from it, because it is the only one that the rules give cover to.

The concept that the guy behind the corner of the building is not in cover (& thus cannot use stealth) just makes no sense to me at all.

----
The issue of terrain is important, the rules should give guidelines on how to apply rules to terrain, but the rules shouldn't be written on the assumption of X and Y types of terrain being present in certain amounts.

To look at Infinity as an example at a tournament level you can run scenarios that have; no terrain requirements, scenarios that require 2-9 objectives and finally there are scenarios that mandate an 8"x8" terrain piece with doors in the middle of each side. As a TO you can choose the scenarios for your rounds according to your ability to do those things. So you see groups add more of these elements over time to their boards (and a bunch of micro-companies churning out products to meet those needs).

All of these things have rules that are written for them, because they are the objectives of the games. However aside from that the rules assume nothing in particular about the terrain, but give advice about general terrain density (higher than RK in my experience).

This means you see a lot of terrain variance in Infinity, at a tournament every table is unique (except the scenario objectives). This makes it much easier to have 5 or 6 people bring the terrain for a lot of tables.

RK tries to say have A, B, C & D terrain to run an event, that simply doesn't work unless the person has just been getting terrain for RK purposes and makes it harder to put tables together.

So, in short, specific terrain requirements, and general rules (like cover & stealth) written on the assumption those requirements are met is bad.

_________________
Australian Soda Pop Community On Facebook
South East QLD Relic Knights on Facebook


March 16th, 2017, 1:14 am
Profile WWW
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: June 23rd, 2014, 9:51 am
Posts: 39
Gotta pipe in quickly as we're finishing our first beta-test game and I was wondering what was wrong with stealth and apparently I read it very very very wrong - don't know what made me to this impression but on quick read I understood that if single line between left side of miniatures base to the target's left side or right side of the attacker to the target's right side crossed AT ALL through any terrain it would gain cover ---> stealth would apply and therefore Tahariel was basically untargettable :D


If I understood now correctly stealth is basically useless if you can see enemy's base at all?

This will be really hard to fix, either stealth seems to be overpowered or that you'll never get it unless there's some barricades.


March 18th, 2017, 8:51 pm
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 481
Nekrah wrote:
If I understood now correctly stealth is basically useless if you can see enemy's base at all?

This will be really hard to fix, either stealth seems to be overpowered or that you'll never get it unless there's some barricades.
Correct. This isn't the first thread that's wrestled with the issue. In its current iteration, specific types of terrain is generally needed, and such terrain need to be fairly large to be useful with the amount of mobility the game has.

With the 2.0 ruleset, hopefully stealth can be tweaked enough to be impactful.


March 18th, 2017, 9:02 pm
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: July 11th, 2015, 10:54 am
Posts: 81
It's funny, but of all the rules, Stealth and Cover are actually one that my group has never had issues with. We tend to run buildings with size 1 borders along the top of them, and a whole lot of low cover all over the map, so while it is possible to manoeuvre around to get behind people to remove their cover, it's not as common as it seems to be for everyone else.

To be fair, our games are relatively casual, so we tend to be a little lenient. If it's literally 1mm or less showing, we'll often let it slide (mostly because since the terrain we have is store terrain, it's not always in the best condition which can result in damage letting the base show through, or the way it's designed leaves little gaps at ground level despite covering the unit properly from a few mm off the mat up)

Rin Farrah is the one unit of mine I don't mind sitting in a single spot up high and camping, since it fits her, and the only times she's ever lost stealth or took a hit is if someone managed to run their units up the building before I could Headshot them, they were running Fiametta/DS Fiametta, or they've had direct damage AoEs that they've laid down and I couldn't activate anyone who could clear them before Rin activated.


March 19th, 2017, 9:52 am
Profile
Ninja Corps
User avatar

Joined: March 25th, 2012, 9:44 pm
Posts: 2294
I think part of it is also (at last to be) that cover is only horizontal. Meaning only a wall along the ground can give cover, as opposed to a building corner.

It may be cumbersome, but a way to determine "cover" may be to use the current LOS method (the "window") but let both sides draw a line, not just the attacker. It may have to be kajiggered as to exactly what means what, but for example, if the attacker draws clear and the defender draws blocked, that could count as cover.

Dunno how viable that is. But it would make it feel less weird to have a model peeking out from a building be in the same position as one running through a daisy patch.


March 19th, 2017, 3:53 pm
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 8th, 2012, 2:39 am
Posts: 428
Location: Virginia
To be honest, I wouldn't mind if they just removed cover from the game since its so corner case. The game basically boils down to LoS or no LoS anyways, cover is in a weird place where maybe it should just get the axe and cover simply doesn't exist if being overhauled is out of the equation.

If we look at all the suggested traits in the terrain section, all they require to get the bonuses is base to base contact with the terrain. Cover doesn't really come into it there except for Protection [x].

Perhaps Stealth should just be a passive effect of some kind without relying on terrain and Protection should simply require being base to base like the other traits for the sake of solidarity.

_________________
Personal feelings have nothing to do with it, it's a matter of honor. It's a matter of pride!


March 20th, 2017, 2:11 am
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 481
Usagi wrote:
I think part of it is also (at last to be) that cover is only horizontal. Meaning only a wall along the ground can give cover, as opposed to a building corner.

It may be cumbersome, but a way to determine "cover" may be to use the current LOS method (the "window") but let both sides draw a line, not just the attacker. It may have to be kajiggered as to exactly what means what, but for example, if the attacker draws clear and the defender draws blocked, that could count as cover.

Dunno how viable that is. But it would make it feel less weird to have a model peeking out from a building be in the same position as one running through a daisy patch.


I like this suggestion. It nicely addresses the issue of "peeking", while allowing stealth and other effects to work. And of course, being a very mobile game, you'll still be able to re-position for a clear line of fire, but this would allow stealth units to force larger readjustments for firing solutions.

And you don't even need make it more cumbersome, you just need to change the wording such that it says if any line could be drawn that crosses an obscuring object, then cover is granted.

Of course, this has been suggested before, and one of the problems is that then peeking works the opposite way, and you can benefit from cover with just a small portion of the base hiding. I still think, overall, that if they're going to keep stealth in the game, it needs to work, and I'd rather have it be a hair strong than a hair weak. (And with melee being much improved, stealth does have a more obtainable counter.) A possible work-around for the peeking issue would be to allow stealth to be "broken" if another friendly unit can draw LOS to the stealthed unit and the stealthed unit is not 100% in cover in relation to the attacker. (IE if you're 'peeking' and another unit can see you, they alert their comrade. If you're not peeking, they call out but their comrade is all, "I don't see what you're talking about!?")


March 20th, 2017, 3:18 am
Profile
Bottle Cap

Joined: March 21st, 2017, 9:46 pm
Posts: 4
Major Glitch wrote:
Usagi wrote:
I think part of it is also (at last to be) that cover is only horizontal. Meaning only a wall along the ground can give cover, as opposed to a building corner.

It may be cumbersome, but a way to determine "cover" may be to use the current LOS method (the "window") but let both sides draw a line, not just the attacker. It may have to be kajiggered as to exactly what means what, but for example, if the attacker draws clear and the defender draws blocked, that could count as cover.

Dunno how viable that is. But it would make it feel less weird to have a model peeking out from a building be in the same position as one running through a daisy patch.


Of course, this has been suggested before, and one of the problems is that then peeking works the opposite way, and you can benefit from cover with just a small portion of the base hiding.


In my opinion the bigger problem is that you get punished for taking cover, if both draw a line. You have a unit behind a small wall and can't shoot the unit with stealth that is standing in the middle of an empty field, because the defender draws a line through your cover. That neither sounds fair nor reasonable.

My suggestion would be using the volumes of the models, the models already have a size value ans a base size. Let only the attacker draw lines, but he must be able to draw lines to more then, just to give a possible value, half the volume. If he cannot the enemy is in cover.
That means a size 2 model would be in cover behind a size 1 wall, as the lines to her lower body are blocked. A model peeping around a corner would be in cover as long as the attacker cannot draw a line to the center of the base. So the rule can be simplified for the most common situations, but is still useable for more complex situations as well.


March 21st, 2017, 10:21 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.