beyer
Private
Science. It works bitches!
Posts: 16
|
Post by beyer on Mar 3, 2011 4:42:28 GMT -5
I was actually referring to the wording of later incarnations of the rules or an errata. Forced movement very easily breaks down when one player tries to gain an advantage out of an otherwise disadvantageous situation. Being very clear on how to move things in games with no grids or preset movement patters is extremely important.
|
|
|
Post by lorka on Mar 13, 2011 13:22:44 GMT -5
So official ruling is head to nearest cover, got it.
Now we had a situation today where some one in cover could move to another cover, while staying in cover (wow that is a lot of cover), so the question is, is this allow, or are you no longer allowed to move when already in cover?
Also if you can move from one cover to another that means that with a teleporter you can actually more or less ignore being suppressed and move where ever you want - since you wont be moving into open ground at anytime.
|
|
|
Post by cosworth on Mar 14, 2011 4:29:39 GMT -5
I can live with models moving while suppressed (which is allowed according to the rules) but lack a definition of what they should take cover from. Cover is often dependant on point of view.
you could 1 Take cover from the shooter. If shooter dies or the shooting model ducks behond something then there's no need for cover.
2 Take cover from direction of the shots. No longer dependant on shooter. Always has to seek cover as the assailant is "unknown".
3 Take cover from all enemy crew. Creates impossible to take cover situations more often.
I find #2 most intuitive. The precise wording would be:
"A suppressed model must seek the nearest cover from the direction of the suppression causing shot as if the shooter was standing anywhere between 1 to 48 inches away."
In most situation this would require the suppressed unit to move away from the shooter even if cover granting obstacles are available between the suppressed unit and the shooter. That's panic for you! The "anywhere between 1 to 48 inches" is just a simple way to make the players form a straight line to measure from.
|
|
|
Post by lorka on Mar 14, 2011 5:17:40 GMT -5
I can live with models moving while suppressed (which is allowed according to the rules) (...) I am not sure the rules actually says you can move while suppressed as much as they say you have to seek cover and to get into cover you are only allowed to use move actions. This is strictly not the same as being allowed to move while suppressed as it is allowing you a certain subset of movements In your suggestion you are actually forced to move away from cover you are in already, since cover within 1" don't count. This makes no sense to me, if you are already in cover, doing nothing seems like a perfectly reasonably suppressed action. I think moving to nearest cover from the direction of the shooting, stopping when in cover makes most sense to me. Also I don't think you should be allowed to move when in cover and suppressed, even if that cover was e.g. a building and you could move around it and go out of line of sight etc. To me suppression is forcing people to keep their head down, but to balance suppression they can move into some cover if they are out in the open. But running toward opponents or leaving your self open to half you opponents crew while being in cover from the shooter, or teleporting all over the battlefield all seems totally against at least the spirit of this ruling if not the wording.
|
|
|
Post by Cilionelle on Mar 14, 2011 5:27:55 GMT -5
Definition of cover: "a piece of terrain that obscures line of sight to the targeted model's base, providing some protection from ranged attacks." The cover sought is dependent on the shooter, not the target, thus the model(s) suppressed must move to something that interposes itself between the model(s) shooting and the model(s) suppressed. As you said, cosworth, cover is dependent on point-of-view, and that is determined at the point at which the models are suppressed, not on their activation.
This means that the models suppressed move to the (nearest) cover that is between them and the model which suppressed them at the point at which they were suppressed.
That's how I would play it... an actual answer will, I'm sure, be forecoming.
|
|
|
Post by lorka on Mar 14, 2011 5:52:36 GMT -5
Cilionelle would you allow someone already in cover to move as long as they stay in some form of cover versus the shooter, and if so do this also count for teleporting to some cover?
|
|
|
Post by cosworth on Mar 14, 2011 11:38:39 GMT -5
Only looking at the shooters position leads to some weird situations. weapons that suppress without LoS to the target (smart weapon) would not force the target to move at all as they are already in cover. Now if I was getting shot at with rockets I'd reconsider my current position regardless of whether I could see the shooter or not.
|
|
|
Post by varagon on Mar 14, 2011 16:27:12 GMT -5
Only looking at the shooters position leads to some weird situations. weapons that suppress without LoS to the target (smart weapon) would not force the target to move at all as they are already in cover. Now if I was getting shot at with rockets I'd reconsider my current position regardless of whether I could see the shooter or not. Where could the suppressed targets go at this point? Perhaps just scatter the units in a random direction as they bolt from their position?
|
|
|
Post by Cilionelle on Mar 14, 2011 16:45:07 GMT -5
Cilionelle would you allow someone already in cover to move as long as they stay in some form of cover versus the shooter, and if so do this also count for teleporting to some cover? Nope. They're in cover, it's the nearest, that's where they stay.
|
|
|
Post by Cilionelle on Mar 14, 2011 16:47:29 GMT -5
Only looking at the shooters position leads to some weird situations. weapons that suppress without LoS to the target (smart weapon) would not force the target to move at all as they are already in cover. Now if I was getting shot at with rockets I'd reconsider my current position regardless of whether I could see the shooter or not. Where could the suppressed targets go at this point? Perhaps just scatter the units in a random direction as they bolt from their position? I don't think they'd go anywhere. Being behind cover means they are safe(r) from the shots than otherwise. They aren't being hit by the rockets (and as a player, you know that), so staying in cover is the smartest thing to do. Moving out of cover and not making it to another piece of cover means that the next rocket shot could kill you, rather than just making you run. Until the game has destructible terrain, that is...
|
|
|
Post by varagon on Mar 14, 2011 21:18:23 GMT -5
Right. I was making a comment for the original poster to realize that staying in cover is the best thing.
I don't want to scatter randomly...perhaps into worse situations.
Thanks for jumping in and clarifying Cilionelle.
|
|
|
Post by lorka on Mar 15, 2011 3:05:56 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that when suppressed if you are in cover dont move if not in cover go to nearest cover. If in doubt on what defines cover it is versus the shooting unit.
Do I have that right?
|
|
|
Post by Cilionelle on Mar 15, 2011 6:37:54 GMT -5
Correct.
If suppressed, __Then ____If in cover, stay in cover. ____If out of cover, move to the nearest terrain that would provide cover from the shooter.
|
|
|
Post by lorka on Mar 15, 2011 7:17:25 GMT -5
That is what I thought, but we had some, dare I say, heated arguments about it the other night, so it would be really awesome if we could have an official response one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by cosworth on Mar 15, 2011 14:02:06 GMT -5
Correct. If suppressed, __ Then____ If in cover, stay in cover. ____ If out of cover, move to the nearest terrain that would provide cover from the shooter. Sorry to be nitpicky but "cover from the shooter" should perhaps be "cover relative to the suppressing shots origin." lorka: this doesn't help our heated discussion as the argument was about moving while in cover.
|
|