50 shades of cover

Any rules question for MFZ: Rapid Attack should be asked here.
Forum rules
This is a game - This is fun - All of your posts should reflect this

50 shades of cover

Postby EvilGod » Wed May 25, 2016 4:17 pm

Hy the follwoing situations came up in our last game.

1. Two frames (A and B) are facing each other in HtH range over a short wall. A third frame (X) wants to shoot at A. Should B count as cover for A, or does only the wall count as cover or do both count as cover?
A|B-----X
_^Cover
We decided that only one of the two should count but we were not sure which.

2. Two frames (C and D) are standing next two each other in HtH and they are next to a wall. A third frame (Z) wants to shoot C but C is half covered by the wall and half covered by D. Which cover is damaged first, or are they both damaged? Who does the attacking Frame or defending Frame decide the order?
C|
D \
___Z

EDIT: next time i will draw in PAINT instead of ascii :oops: and sorry for the title.
Last edited by EvilGod on Wed May 25, 2016 4:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
EvilGod
Chatty
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:08 am

Re: Multiple layers of cover

Postby EvilGod » Wed May 25, 2016 4:28 pm

3. Frame E declares Frame F as a direct range target. Frame F has not activated yet. So after E has rolled all systems, F has to declare a target and roll. F declares E as its target and rolls. E then makes his damage roll and moves behind cover (in our case a Frame from the same team as F :twisted: ). regardless what damage E made, F still uses its original roll but F has to compensate for the new position of E, correct? in our case this meant, that F has to decide wether to risk his own frame, but it could also mean, that F has to spend movement to keep E in range etc. Am I right?
User avatar
EvilGod
Chatty
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:08 am

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby VitorFaria » Wed May 25, 2016 4:33 pm

1. As we play in my group, only the wall would take damage as it is the "closest" cover.

2. We would probably decide that "democratically". I'm not sure if there's a explicit rule for that.
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." Carl Sagan
User avatar
VitorFaria
Mod Team
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:21 am
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby Blorf » Wed May 25, 2016 4:39 pm

1 & 2: Since there's no line of sight rule in MFZ, situations 1 and 2 are identical. There's no clear answer to these, so play what your group decides is fair. However, it's generally accepted that it's the attacker's choice, since the attacker decides how cover is destroyed when it gets hit. One possible alternate solution was discussed: 4s hit the wall and 5s hit the frame. (4s would never hit the frame anyway, and 6s never hit cover unless directly targeted.) This was discussed at length in and old thread; it's worth digging that up because there was some good discussion in it.

3: That's correct. Range is declared at the beginning of a turn, but not checked until an attack is made.
Now developing the Mobile Frame Zero Commander's Handbook — The official mobile/web app for rules, game aids, and tactical planning.
User avatar
Blorf
Mod Team
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:48 pm
Location: I stand with Twankus

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby EvilGod » Wed May 25, 2016 4:52 pm

Blorf wrote:This was discussed at length in and old thread; it's worth digging that up because there was some good discussion in it.

I tried searching the forum before i posted, but the search function returned no result, claming, that "Cover" is a much too common term to use in a search :roll:
User avatar
EvilGod
Chatty
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:08 am

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby CmdrRook » Fri May 27, 2016 8:47 am

EvilGod wrote:
Blorf wrote:This was discussed at length in and old thread; it's worth digging that up because there was some good discussion in it.

I tried searching the forum before i posted, but the search function returned no result, claming, that "Cover" is a much too common term to use in a search :roll:


Page 125 of the Rapid Attack rulebook:
"Can the attacker make the attack, even though it's a close judgement call?
Yes! When it comes to whether an attack is legitimate, be generous to the attacker."


"Is the defender in cover, even though it's a close judgement call?
Yes! When it comes to whether something counts as cover, be generous to the defender."


I have always interpreted this quote to mean that it is the defender's choice if they are in cover or not, and if so, using what. I believe there was some clarification in the above-mentioned thread that if the Frame Acting As Cover was controlled by the Attacker, they would need to give the Defender permission to use it as cover, which seemed counter to the rules as written. There also certainly was clarification that a Defender had to choose which cover they were using for the entirety of the attack, and was unable to distribute the damage between multiple potential sources of cover.

Edit: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2518 Here's the thread in question.
User avatar
CmdrRook
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:15 pm
Location: Western MA, USA

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby Blorf » Fri May 27, 2016 1:13 pm

CmdrRook wrote:Edit: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2518 Here's the thread in question.


Thanks for digging that up. I don't think anyone but Joshua can clarify this issue further beyond what's been said in that thread and this one.
Now developing the Mobile Frame Zero Commander's Handbook — The official mobile/web app for rules, game aids, and tactical planning.
User avatar
Blorf
Mod Team
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:48 pm
Location: I stand with Twankus

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby Starflower » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:17 am

CmdrRook wrote:I have always interpreted this quote to mean that it is the defender's choice if they are in cover or not, and if so, using what. I believe there was some clarification in the above-mentioned thread that if the Frame Acting As Cover was controlled by the Attacker, they would need to give the Defender permission to use it as cover, which seemed counter to the rules as written. There also certainly was clarification that a Defender had to choose which cover they were using for the entirety of the attack, and was unable to distribute the damage between multiple potential sources of cover.

Edit: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2518 Here's the thread in question.


This is very interesting.
I can get behind the idea that the defender has to choose only one piece of cover to use even if more are available, but I'm absolutely for the defender being the one to make that choice. What's the point for the whole "frames as cover" thing, if the owner of the covering frame can disallow that? If you want to be safe from that damage, well, that's what the d6B d6B special is for, right?

Now, I see a potential problem in the defender preventing the terrain-cover being destroyed by choosing to use a d6B d6B frame for cover (whether allied or opposing one). But is that really a big deal? That just means you've got to get rid of that covering frame first. And if there's just a normal, non-two-blue frame as a cover, I think it's a lot more interesting when it gets in the line of fire instead of some dull wall.

If you want to enforce a rule that frames can only be used as cover if there's no other cover, I guess that's ok. Explicit wording along those lines could clear this?

...Oh, wait. Another thing. If a frame can only use one source for cover -- well, let's say that a frame is hunkering behind some trees. One tree can take one hit. So the frame could benefit from one tree per attack only? Is that the right way to go about it? That would make a big difference between a bunch of trees and a big, reinforced wall, even if they would otherwise soak the same amount of hits. (But would that also mean that you could also only destroy one tree per attack, if you'd target the jungle?)
User avatar
Starflower
Young Gun
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby CmdrRook » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:57 am

That's been clarified in a roundabout way, and while I hesitate to use the term, treating a forest as a single source of cover may be the "wrong" way to go about it. Whenever questions like this arise, such as "if a frame takes cover in the middle of a longer wall piece, then all but the very ends of the wall are reduced below three bricks, is the frame still in cover?", the answer has always been "yes, build smaller terrain features to avoid these strange interactions." Each tree should be an individual piece of cover or create a small stand of trees on a base to combine them into one larger feature.
User avatar
CmdrRook
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:15 pm
Location: Western MA, USA

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby Shades_Corvid » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:14 pm

CmdrRook wrote:That's been clarified in a roundabout way, and while I hesitate to use the term, treating a forest as a single source of cover may be the "wrong" way to go about it. Whenever questions like this arise, such as "if a frame takes cover in the middle of a longer wall piece, then all but the very ends of the wall are reduced below three bricks, is the frame still in cover?", the answer has always been "yes, build smaller terrain features to avoid these strange interactions." Each tree should be an individual piece of cover or create a small stand of trees on a base to combine them into one larger feature.


Where is is clarified because I can't find it and also sounds wrong.
"The Legs have Teeth..." *Comm Static*

Dark Cloud Blogs - A MF0 Blog (Mostly)

The University - MF0 Discord Server
User avatar
Shades_Corvid
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 738
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:12 pm

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby Starflower » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:48 pm

CmdrRook wrote:Whenever questions like this arise, such as "if a frame takes cover in the middle of a longer wall piece, then all but the very ends of the wall are reduced below three bricks, is the frame still in cover?", the answer has always been "yes, build smaller terrain features to avoid these strange interactions."


Oh, I've always went with the idea that if the cover gets busted enough that there clearly isn't enough cover left within arm's reach (1 unit) of the frame, it can't take cover any more and subsequent hits get through. Makes more sense to me.
User avatar
Starflower
Young Gun
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby CmdrRook » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:20 pm

Shades_Corvid wrote:
CmdrRook wrote:That's been clarified in a roundabout way, and while I hesitate to use the term, treating a forest as a single source of cover may be the "wrong" way to go about it. Whenever questions like this arise, such as "if a frame takes cover in the middle of a longer wall piece, then all but the very ends of the wall are reduced below three bricks, is the frame still in cover?", the answer has always been "yes, build smaller terrain features to avoid these strange interactions." Each tree should be an individual piece of cover or create a small stand of trees on a base to combine them into one larger feature.


Where is is clarified because I can't find it and also sounds wrong.


Starflower wrote:Oh, I've always went with the idea that if the cover gets busted enough that there clearly isn't enough cover left within arm's reach (1 unit) of the frame, it can't take cover any more and subsequent hits get through. Makes more sense to me.


viewtopic.php?f=32&t=4471#p37170

This thread is very illuminating on the intent of the rules behind cover.
User avatar
CmdrRook
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:15 pm
Location: Western MA, USA

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby VitorFaria » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:25 pm

CmdrRook wrote:
Shades_Corvid wrote:
CmdrRook wrote:That's been clarified in a roundabout way, and while I hesitate to use the term, treating a forest as a single source of cover may be the "wrong" way to go about it. Whenever questions like this arise, such as "if a frame takes cover in the middle of a longer wall piece, then all but the very ends of the wall are reduced below three bricks, is the frame still in cover?", the answer has always been "yes, build smaller terrain features to avoid these strange interactions." Each tree should be an individual piece of cover or create a small stand of trees on a base to combine them into one larger feature.


Where is is clarified because I can't find it and also sounds wrong.


Starflower wrote:Oh, I've always went with the idea that if the cover gets busted enough that there clearly isn't enough cover left within arm's reach (1 unit) of the frame, it can't take cover any more and subsequent hits get through. Makes more sense to me.


http://mobileframehangar.com/viewtopic. ... 471#p37170

This thread is very illuminating on the intent of the rules behind cover.


Read this topic before, I can't bring myself to play the way Joshua suggests on this subject.

Always played like Starflower explained and I see no reason to change it as it simply makes more sense to me.
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." Carl Sagan
User avatar
VitorFaria
Mod Team
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:21 am
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby CmdrRook » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:46 pm

I frequently play that way, myself, but when it comes to introducing a new player to the game, I leave my house rule at the door and focus on getting them accustomed to the rules in the book first. Answering these questions is an important part of ensuring more people learn the intricacies of the game as they are written before tweaking the system to suit their needs.
User avatar
CmdrRook
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:15 pm
Location: Western MA, USA

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby VitorFaria » Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:35 am

I'm not sure I would even call it a house rule as it is a valid (and common) interpretation of the book itself. Clarifications outside of it won't change that.

Had Joshua made this clearer on the book that wouldn't be the case, but frankly, I'm glad he didn't.
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." Carl Sagan
User avatar
VitorFaria
Mod Team
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:21 am
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby CmdrRook » Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:36 am

The RAW is quite clear to me (for all that's worth) that Cover is; a) a structure, b) at least three bricks tall, c) within h2h of the defender and, d) between the attacker and defender. And we do have the first hand clarification of the author available clarifying that the RAW stands as RAI, and even offer a recommendation to avoid cases that muddy it. There is nothing stopping all of us from playing the rule differently, but don't confuse popular consensus with a rewriting of the rules, themselves.
User avatar
CmdrRook
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:15 pm
Location: Western MA, USA

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby VitorFaria » Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:20 am

Still, a house rule is a change in the rules that deviates on purpose from the standard rules.

I read the book and came to certain conclusion about a rule and started playing it. To say that it is "wrong" because the main author clarified it differently somewhere else is not how I see things.

It implies that for someone to start playing MF0 "right" that person would need to read all the bloody rules section of the Hangar first, which defeats the purpose of having a book to begin with.
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." Carl Sagan
User avatar
VitorFaria
Mod Team
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:21 am
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby CmdrRook » Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:35 pm

I answered a question and cited my sources while using the phrasing I was most comfortable using. Further discussion about the legitimacy of the official rules would be better suited for the thread I linked, where it bogged down into a defensive quagmire of the most petty semantics imaginable, and likely will again. Please forgive my bluntness, it's not out of disregard, but a desire to maintain a helpful dialog in this thread.
User avatar
CmdrRook
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:15 pm
Location: Western MA, USA

Re: 50 shades of cover

Postby VitorFaria » Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:11 pm

CmdrRook wrote:I answered a question and cited my sources while using the phrasing I was most comfortable using. Further discussion about the legitimacy of the official rules would be better suited for the thread I linked, where it bogged down into a defensive quagmire of the most petty semantics imaginable, and likely will again. Please forgive my bluntness, it's not out of disregard, but a desire to maintain a helpful dialog in this thread.


I understand.
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." Carl Sagan
User avatar
VitorFaria
Mod Team
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:21 am
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil


Return to Rapid Attack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest