Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

[Total War] Concealment
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15623
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Chroma [ Tue May 19, 2009 1:17 pm ]
Post subject:  [Total War] Concealment

Here are the updated Concealment rules, built with the kind permission of Miles Holmes.

The rules may seem a little daunting at first, but make decent sense with a bit of experience.  Take a look and let me know what you think!




Author:  Chroma [ Tue May 19, 2009 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:  [Total War] Concealment

Just realized I'm going to have to add something about "clumping" Concealment counters and "intermingled spotting".

But the gist of the rules will stay the same.

Author:  jasca [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  [Total War] Concealment

sorry wrong place




Author:  Ginger [ Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:41 am ]
Post subject:  [Total War] Concealment

Several issues popped up at the recent "Winter warmer"

Number of counters
Is this determined before or after the Attacker's contingents are split up etc. Also, where formations are 'revealed' how does that affect the count??

In my game, the Attacking Eldar army had 12 acctivations, and chose 8 including one Air and one WE. "3" was thrown on the dice, so how many markers should be used
  • 15 - just count the original army and add "3"
  • 13 - as above, less the two 'revealed' formations
  • 11 - count the number available to the Eldar player and add "3"
  • 9 - as above less the two 'revealed' formations


Counter ZoC
Several games had the intruiging position where a Defending formation physically moved onto an undisclosed Attacker marker. This seems to be counter-intuitive or perhaps it is actually "counter intuitive"  :shutup:

Suggestion:- all counters, and indeed all markers in scenarios, ought to have at least a "scout ZoC" of 10 cm, or even more. Otherwise it causes all sorts of problems about deployment and moving into ZoC etc quite apart from the question of why the Attacker was so well 'hidden'.

Hidden Vehicles
Must be deployed in terrain!? This again caused many problems - eg a mechanised company near buildings or rubble (or other impassable terrain). I presume the intent was that they should be placed behind hills or woods etc so could be placed on the reverse slope or in the tree-line. And what dispensation for 'walkers'?

Suggestion is that the vehicle restriction be removed and spotting be modified (see below)

Equally, why the penalty for WE (which must automatically be deployed, and thus automatically allows the Defender to react). I presume this should be "Titans" which would be more reasonable.

Aircraft
If the Attacker has aircraft, does that mean that a counter has been 'revealed' so allowing the Defender to move freely?? Equally, is the Attacker forced to use them immediately (as this is his only available activation)?

Suggestion:- any air formation be deployed on the table as a counter in the normal fashion. The attacker may voluntarily reveal it as a Ground Assault on a point near the counter (within 30cm?), or as an Interception or CAP (with a test). If spotted by the Defender, the formation automatically stands down.

Spotting
Can counters be "spotted" in terrain (or even through it)? The argument being that they can be placed on one side while the formation is deployed on the other side. I suspect this is actually the intention, so allowing the Attacker to prevent the Defender from seeing anything - and thus letting the Attacker get some OW shots off.

Suggested modifiers
+1 if target formation contains LV
+2 if target formation contains AV
+4 if target formation contains WE
Automatic If target formation is a Titan

and perhaps
-1 if target counter is behind terrain
+1 for every other counter within 10 cm of the one being spotted (to prevent 'clumping'

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/