Cool sketch!

That said, in the older 3rd/4th edition rules if that piece of ruins was considered "area terrain" then it would automatically block LoS entirely through it (regardless of the width/depth) and also block LoS further than 6" from edge.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Cool sketch!

That said, in the older 3rd/4th edition rules if that piece of ruins was considered "area terrain" then it would automatically block LoS entirely through it (regardless of the width/depth) and also block LoS further than 6" from edge.

Right but troops inside could still be seen and I wanted some terrain that would give them the option of hiding. Plus having it work for non 3rd-4th is handy


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brickfix wrote:
That's a really neat design

Thanks!

It could be abstracted with a "hidden" mechanic in which infantry units within ruins could hid themselves from LOS.

But it is a very neat design, although makes movement trickier for ground vehicles (tanks and basements aren't friends).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The survey results show that I'm not alone.

Do the survey results show that people like 2nd Ed's Overwatch?

I'm I'm not mistaken, that was the only edition that featured the mechanic, so it's not an unreasonable assumption that they were thinking of that when they answered the question.

However, there's a popular console game that uses the title, so maybe that's what they were thinking the game needed more of.

 Tyran wrote:
It could be abstracted with a "hidden" mechanic in which infantry units within ruins could hid themselves from LOS.

But it is a very neat design, although makes movement trickier for ground vehicles (tanks and basements aren't friends).

Yeah, could be abstracted too, but I'm not usually doing house rules so it just works "out of the box". And of course it means that some ruins have the feature and some don't. Same applies with the tank thing. Some buildings you can drive through, but some you can't.

Depending on the height level and the size of the platforms, it can mean some infantry can benefit more than others too.

Slipspace wrote:

That seems like a stretch. It's entirely plausible that people are simply misremembering a rule form over 20 years ago, and they were playing it correctly at the time. All they're left with now is the emotional response to the situation, rather than the finer details. That pretty much describes me. Overwatch in 2nd edition was a terrible mechanic for the most part, because of how it bogged the game down and led to so much analysis paralysis. It was the obvious default choice in almost every situation where a shooting unit couldn't see a good target, especially if it had heavy weapons.

I think you're right that people misremembered stuff, and that's what came to light. Again, the only reason I created the 40k page on my site was because these were things people actually brought up. I didn't do it for my health or the joy of smashing straw men, people legitimately got stuff wrong. I love 2nd ed., but the rulebook had some serious issues with highlighting key provisions.

And the "analysis paralysis" is an interesting phenomenon. Among the set I ran with, it didn't exist. I don't know if it was because so many of them were prior military and just assumed "reaction fire" was a thing or we were bloody-minded fools, but I did play against people who froze up and they were pretty easy to dispatch for that reason.

I will hazard that they did not like the rule. A lot of people don't like their troops getting picked off during their own turn. It's unnerving. To counter it, you need to not only figure out your move, but execute it in the proper order. It definitely increases the degree of tactical difficulty.