Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
Simple Alternative to Vehicle Cover Rules? http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=30366 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Commander Karth [ Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:11 am ] |
Post subject: | Simple Alternative to Vehicle Cover Rules? |
In the Director's Cut article in Firepower 1, Jervis mentions that the playtesting team had to ultimately leave out a special rule for infantry seeking cover behind tanks while advancing. While the rule was interesting, he claims that they were never able to find a simple wording that would preclude abuse and exploitation by rules lawyers. I was giving the rule some more thought and realized that you could articulate it clearly if you paired it down a bit. Below is my simplified version of the rule... what do you think? ![]() Advancing Behind Vehicles Infantry units may use vehicles in their detachment for cover when advancing towards the enemy line. To do this, arrange up to two infantry units (not cavalry!) behind each vehicle and in base to base contact. The vehicle must not be a skimmer, walker or something small like a bike, and must be from the same detachment as the infantry. The exact arrangement is flexible, but should be visibly appealing and logical. As long as they remain in base contact, these infantry units count as being in cover against incoming attacks. This cover is lost if the attacking detachment has any unit that both has line of sight to the infantry and is positioned behind an imaginary line drawn between the infantry and the vehicle (that is, behind the vehicle). Alternately, infantry units can be placed on either side of the vehicle (although all infantry must be placed on the same side) to protect against flank attacks. Draw a line along the side of the vehicle between the infantry units and the vehicle to determine cover as above. |
Author: | moredakka [ Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:36 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Simple Alternative to Vehicle Cover Rules? |
Yes that sounds simple enough to me, what you need though is a few images to show the idea. I will try this rule out next time I have a game. |
Author: | Commander Karth [ Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Simple Alternative to Vehicle Cover Rules? |
Certainly. In the following example, the forward Dark Angels Space Marine Squad on the right does NOT have cover, since (although it is in proper formation behind the Predator) there is an Ork unit behind the line between the Marines and the Predator. The second Space Marine Squad on the left (behind the Predator Annihilator) IS in cover, however, as the attacking Ork detachment is fully in front of the red line. If the Ork player chooses to roll on the "no cover" column, then he can only kill up to four units: the two Predators and the two units of the forward squad. The rear squad will be unharmed (although perhaps cowering behind the burning wreck of the Predator Annihilator!). Note the two possible ways to arrange infantry units behind vehicles. The "broad" formation for the second Dark Angels squad is particularly appropriate for square-based infantry (although either could be used in that case as well). Also, note that the E40k rules normally consider a multi-model based unit to be within a distance, under a template or behind a line if at least half of the individual figurines on the base are. In this case, the Dark Angels player just gave the Orks the benefit of the doubt. What friendly sportsmanship! Attachment:
|
Author: | jimmyzimms [ Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Simple Alternative to Vehicle Cover Rules? |
I don't play E40k but that illustration makes the rule and application perfectly clear. Nice work! |
Author: | moredakka [ Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Simple Alternative to Vehicle Cover Rules? |
Nice diagram and explanation, good stuff. |
Author: | Kyrt [ Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Simple Alternative to Vehicle Cover Rules? |
So do you have to be in base contact with the vehicle? The second stand of marines in the right is not |
Author: | Commander Karth [ Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:03 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Simple Alternative to Vehicle Cover Rules? |
I was thinking there could be two basic arrangments, as seen in the diagram. Either the infantry are side to side and both in base contact with the vehicle, or the two infantry are stacked behind the vehicle. Those seem to be the most logical arrangements. |
Author: | moredakka [ Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Simple Alternative to Vehicle Cover Rules? |
The stacked example was in the original diagram from Jervis's article. |
Author: | Commander Karth [ Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Simple Alternative to Vehicle Cover Rules? |
moredakka wrote: The stacked example was in the original diagram from Jervis's article. Ah, looking at the article again that is indeed where I got the idea! It definitely "looks right" as a formation (although it might be weird for 20mm square bases). |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |