concealment

[Falk]

A     xxxxx                              B

A wants to obey B. one line of sight passes through a small Wood (xxxx).

Does the attack suffers from concealment?

[Adran]

10 minutes ago, Falk said:

A     xxxxx                              B

A wants to obey B. one line of sight passes through a small Wood (xxxx).

Does the attack suffers from concealment?

Does the woods have the Concealing trait? (The rule book suggestion is yes they will)

Assuming that it does, then yes the model b Has concealment from A, which means any non  attack action targeting it will have a flip applied.

 

1 sight line crossing it is enough to grant concealment, they don't all need to cross the terrain.

 

[Eshadie]

Follow up question on Concealment.
In the given example, who all has concealment?

"If a sight line drawn to a model passes through Concealing Terrain, that model has Concealment. When drawing sight lines a model in Concealing Terrain may ignore that terrain’s Concealing trait if any single sight line drawn between the two objects passes through 1" or less of that terrain."

If I am reading this correctly, in this example, all models have concealment because a sight line passes through Concealing terrain, and this concealment may not be ignored because the attacking model isn't in the Concealing Terrain.

Is this correct?

 

[trikk]

If Attacker attacks A, B, or C, they all have concealent

 

If A shoots attacker, the attacker doesnt' have concealent (depends on the scale)

[Eshadie]

Yeah, that's what we thought, but instance "B" seemed off to us when we were playing, given how little of the sight line passes over the base (in our game it was even less than the example).

Concealment is pretty strong this edition.

[SunTsu]

On 7/9/2019 at 6:14 PM, Eshadie said:

Concealment is pretty strong this edition.

Probably too much, since how it's written...

Finally, I guess it would lead to some rules balance problem if not fixed. For sure it's unintuitive...

It should be that only models inside/near concealing terrain should benefit from the boon, not a model at the other side of the table...

[santaclaws01]

6 minutes ago, SunTsu said:

It should be that only models inside/near concealing terrain should benefit from the boon, not a model at the other side of the table...

Why?

[SunTsu]

7 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Why?

Because a couple of concealing terrain well placed in particular areas of the table could easily lead to a game situation where any attack to every opponent's crew model suffers from concealment.

This could severely cripple too much ranged crew.

[SunTsu]

Also, here I link the other thread that I assume being relevant for this discussion:

 

[WUWU]

32 minutes ago, SunTsu said:

Because a couple of concealing terrain well placed in particular areas of the table could easily lead to a game situation where any attack to every opponent's crew model suffers from concealment.

This could severely cripple too much ranged crew.

I've seen many people remarking on the power of ranged attacks this edition.  Maybe it balances out....

[Adran]

32 minutes ago, SunTsu said:

Because a couple of concealing terrain well placed in particular areas of the table could easily lead to a game situation where any attack to every opponent's crew model suffers from concealment.

This could severely cripple too much ranged crew.

If anything, I think m3 is the one with the strongest range game. Partially because concealing is still weaker than old cover, and if a board is such that you know there will be a problem with a ranged crew, don't bring one. 

[solkan]

21 minutes ago, SunTsu said:

Because a couple of concealing terrain well placed in particular areas of the table could easily lead to a game situation where any attack to every opponent's crew model suffers from concealment.

This could severely cripple too much ranged crew.

The Kick Up Dust action exists.  As does the Abundant Growth ability.  Both of those create player positioned instances of concealing terrain.

If your plan for a ranged crew is crippled by the presence of concealing terrain, you're either ignoring the various options that a ranged crew has to counteract the effects, or you consider needing to do things other than attack as crippling a crew.  

[santaclaws01]

3 hours ago, SunTsu said:

Because a couple of concealing terrain well placed in particular areas of the table could easily lead to a game situation where any attack to every opponent's crew model suffers from concealment.

This could severely cripple too much ranged crew.

A few well placed pieces of blocking terrain and you can't even attack them, let alone just focus and shoot at them counteracting the severe and giving yourself a positive to the damage flip.

[CD1248]

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

A few well placed pieces of blocking terrain and you can't even attack them, let alone just focus and shoot at them counteracting the severe and giving yourself a positive to the damage flip.

Not only that, but defining terrain is supposed to happen before any crew selection. So if you bring Perdita into a board consisting of a bunch of blind corners and no sight lines, that's the future you chose.

[SunTsu]

I continue to think that giving concealment to a model really far from a terrain that you can even see through, it's very unintuitive and, to me, seems a non-sense.

A purely ranged crew don't would be hit very hard usually, since often those crew have the tools to ignore common penalties affecting ranged attacks. But all ranged attacks from "common" models don't.

Now, setting apart discussion about balance, there's something wrong in the logic behind giving a concealment penalty between two models 24" far from each others, both 12" away from a slight slice of a fog bank that obstruct less than 1/10 of respective bases... Maybe I'm the only one feeling it this way, but I still continue to feel it wrong.

[Adran]

8 hours ago, SunTsu said:

 

Now, setting apart discussion about balance, there's something wrong in the logic behind giving a concealment penalty between two models 24" far from each others, both 12" away from a slight slice of a fog bank that obstruct less than 1/10 of respective bases... Maybe I'm the only one feeling it this way, but I still continue to feel it wrong.

You have to remember the rules are an abstract. It's a lot harder in real life to shoot something a long way from you than it is to shoot something close. The rules don't have that at all. Looking through a fog bank, or a cloud of smoke it is harder to aim at something the other side, and in real life the sides of those are not fixed but slightly moving, so something partially obstructed by it will be harder to aim at. 

[Mycellanious]

12 hours ago, SunTsu said:

I continue to think that giving concealment to a model really far from a terrain that you can even see through, it's very unintuitive and, to me, seems a non-sense.

A purely ranged crew don't would be hit very hard usually, since often those crew have the tools to ignore common penalties affecting ranged attacks. But all ranged attacks from "common" models don't.

Now, setting apart discussion about balance, there's something wrong in the logic behind giving a concealment penalty between two models 24" far from each others, both 12" away from a slight slice of a fog bank that obstruct less than 1/10 of respective bases... Maybe I'm the only one feeling it this way, but I still continue to feel it wrong.

I disagree. I tend to find it harder to see things in the fog that are farther away than things that are close. Similarly, objects that are close to me in the fog are certainly difficult to see, but objects 500 ft away are... still dufficult to see. 

 

Tbh I hear this argument a lot, but it breaks my brain trying to fathom it. How can you not see 5ft into a fog bank, but be able to see clearly throught it 30 ft on the other side? This is simply not how vision works. Visibility diesnt improve with distance it worsens. My eyeballs cant suddenly ignore the smoke in front of them by trying to look through it instead of at it. Is this an ability other people have?

[WUWU]

You can see a golf pin on the green through some trees, but it's still a difficult shot to hit directly.  You could see elk on a hillside behind some trees, but maybe there's a closer elk obscured directly behind some trees that you can't see?  

Maybe the fog bank emanates directly from a specific point, like a fog machine, and it starts dissipating further from the center?  Maybe the model inside is a weird Neverborn gribbly and has special fog skin?

Miniature gaming requires a little bit of imagination and suspension of disbelief