Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Combat Commander: Europe» Forums » Rules

Subject: Why can't you modify the attack roll by the cover? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mark J
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Technically I believe the cover modifies the defense roll. Personally I like to reduce the fire attack roll by the cover along with the hindrance. Then when I make the defense roll I simply don't add the cover to the number. Makes calculating for each unit faster for me. Is there a situation I'm overlooking that would lead to an error in doing it this way?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Pardoe
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
DiploGuy wrote:
Technically I believe the cover modifies the defense roll.

Technically, the cover modifies a unit's morale. The fire defense roll is added to a unit's morale (which is modified by any leader's present in the hex as well as any cover in the hex.)

Quote:
Is there a situation I'm overlooking that would lead to an error in doing it this way?

Only the inconsistency of what is a unit's morale. When recovering a unit, you would be adding the cover to the morale printed on the unit. When routing a unit, you would be adding the cover to the morale printed on the unit. When defending against a shot, you would be using a different morale than in the other cases. If you can keep that straight and explain it clearly to your opponent, all the power to you.

As you are still modifying a unit's cover by any leaders present in the hex, I must admit, I just don't see the benefit of this exception to the normal rules. I quickly calculate for each defending unit the die roll needed to "survive" the fire attack total based upon each unit's morale (as modified by cover and command).

(Edit - As Nick rightly mentions below: SPRAY FIRE would be affected as the two hexes targeted might provide different cover.)
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Stewart
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
It's sooo Hot out here...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DiploGuy wrote:
Technically I believe the cover modifies the defense roll. Personally I like to reduce the fire attack roll by the cover along with the hindrance. Then when I make the defense roll I simply don't add the cover to the number. Makes calculating for each unit faster for me. Is there a situation I'm overlooking that would lead to an error in doing it this way?



There is a technical difference as to what applies to which factor.

Take examples of rendering an Attack value to 0 OR less..

AF are not lowered else it nullifies the attack.

AF of 2 vs a Def of 3 is a valid attack.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Depending on how you would specifically define subtracting the cover from the attack (at what moment in the process you do it), this could make some legal attacks become illegal, since you can't make an attack if the modified FP is 0 or less. (O20.3.2)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ernst Knauth
Germany
Erdmannhausen
BW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
IIRC, there are rules in CC Pacific, that a unit is eliminated (instead of broken), when the attack value is double the defense value. There would be different results if you would subtract the cover from the attack value.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Rigillo
Italy
Roma
Rm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
And Concealment Action would be redundant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Qwirz wrote:
And Concealment Action would be redundant.

Hmm? Why? It would simply subtract the cover from the attack again, just as it does if you play 2 Concealments.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Avtges
United States
Bridgewater
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
CONCEALED -3
badge
It's not easy being green.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It makes the Spray Fire action more difficult to calculate. In that case you may be making a single attack roll against units with differing cover. There may be other cases, perhaps by SSR, where the target units don't all have the same cover. If you're using the experimental tank rules, I think, where units inside the tank have different cover than those outside.

I do think it's valuable to keep it consistent with all the other cases when you are using the unit's morale, as Richard pointed out.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One big thing you're overlooking unless you only play solo is that nobody else plays that way.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BrentS
Australia
Sydney
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
Depending on how you would specifically define subtracting the cover from the attack (at what moment in the process you do it), this could make some legal attacks become illegal, since you can't make an attack if the modified FP is 0 or less. (O20.3.2)


Actually that only applies if the FP is reduced to 0 or less by Hindrances…….which is one excellent reason not to confuse the issue by shifting the Cover modify from where it belongs, which is adding to the target's Morale.

Another place it will cause confusion is the use of Ordnance, where Hindrances modify targeting and Cover shouldn't.

While it might seem to simplify things, rolling Cover modifiers into the fire attack is a recipe for confusion and mistakes and so seems to be no simpler than playing as written.

Brent.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
goshublue wrote:
russ wrote:
Depending on how you would specifically define subtracting the cover from the attack (at what moment in the process you do it), this could make some legal attacks become illegal, since you can't make an attack if the modified FP is 0 or less. (O20.3.2)


Actually that only applies if the FP is reduced to 0 or less by Hindrances…….which is one excellent reason not to confuse the issue by shifting the Cover modify from where it belongs, which is adding to the target's Morale.

Well, we're talking hypotheticals here, of course, since the rules don't work that way, but it seems reasonable to me to assume that IF one were going to subtract cover from the FP, THEN it would be incorporated analogously to O20.3.2.

It would seem strange (to me) if this alternate universe CC ruleset permitted your FP to go negative due to cover but not due to hindrance.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark J
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the pointers on how this way of doing it could cause a problem. I've started doing it this way with my usual opponent. There hasn't been a problem yet. But I would revert back to the correct way when playing other opponents.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Confusion Under Fire
United Kingdom
Warrington
Cheshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It may be my old worn out brain but by the time I have found the units firepower and added on the command modifier as well as each other unit firing checking that each is in range and then adding on any action modifiers and the die roll including, perhaps events, I am ready for the Attack Total Marker.

I usually play solo and wondered if in face to face games where both players are comfortable with the rules that the attacker totals the attack strength and the defender totals the defence strength?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.