$60.00
$20.00
Stevan Corrêa
Brazil
Brasilia
DF
flag msg tools
Unicorn Hunter
mbmbmbmbmb

I must say that the only rule in Imperial Assault that really bugs me is the Line of Sight rule. I love the game and its tactical feel, therefore I can't pass its LoS rule without trying to figure some variant and it would be awesome to hear from you, guys.

Usually, when a figure stands by a simple wall (fig.1) it isn't a problem when the target is by its cover side - the one under cover can shoot (fig.2), but the other can't shoot back (fig.3).

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

The problem starts to appear when the figure under cover shoots a figure by the open side of its cover. In IA rules, there's no difference at all (correct me if I'm wrong here, please) between being under cover (even if partial cover) and out in the open (figs. 4 & 5).

Fig.4

Fig.5

But we need to acknowledge that this (fig.6) is different from this (fig.7), right?!

Fig.6

Fig.7

And in hallways... that's when the thing gets ugly (fig.8 & 9).

Fig.8

Fig.9

I know it's only a game and it's almost impossible to simulate all aspects of tactical combat without a gigantic set of rules and whatnot, and I don't want to make the game harder or of slower pace, but even if you think is no big deal, can we agree that it makes a difference to be against a wall, trying to get an angle out of someones aim and simply walk in the open (fig.8 & 10)?

Fig.8

Fig.10

Okay, now that I've presented the case to you, ladies and gentlemen... what do you think it would be a nice house rule to work with this issue?

What I can think up to right now is to add Accuracy when 3 or 4 lines can be traced to the target and/or subtract Accuracy when only 2 lines can be traced. Something like: -2 Ac. for 2 lines, no change for 3 lines, +2 Ac. for 4 lines.

What do you think?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustav W
Sweden
Lund
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm fine with how it works already. I think it would be fiddly and time consuming, meaning frustrating to play with what you suggest.

Food for thought though:
Use the normal rules with the addition:
Draw a line between the center of the attacker's space and the center of the target space, if the line is obstructed and the obstruction is not closer to the attacker than to the target space: -2 Acc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R B
United States
Stevens Point
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mb
this is exactly what my wife and I were thinking of doing except we would give +1Acc for 3 lines. We haven't tried it yet, but it irritates us that blocking terrain doesn't "block" los realistically. I think adding this will add more strategy to the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bertrand Furcas
Italy
Serramanna
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thing is: there's no such a thing as "being behind cover" in IA, you're just behind a wall or you're not. The "peeking out of cover" part of the manual is just fluff for thematic purpose (and for justifying that a guy, like Fig.2, can shoot).

I think it's first and foremost a balancing thing, 'cause it would be so, so, so easy for strong ranged miniatures to just be impossible to be hit at range staying behind a wall while unleashing hell on his target, like an E-Web.

But these are my 2 cents, and it's my first post too so...
Hello guys, and greetings from Italy
I love this game and I just put my name on the PBF list!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Vance
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
FeyrBert wrote:
I think it's first and foremost a balancing thing, 'cause it would be so, so, so easy for strong ranged miniatures to just be impossible to be hit at range staying behind a wall while unleashing hell on his target, like an E-Web.
I think you've basically got it. In addition, more complex rules would slow the game down too. They probably tested other versions of LoS rules and found this to be the best balance of strategy, accuracy, and ease of play. (IIRC they did change the LoS rules from Decent 2nd edition which IA is based on…)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nolan Cluff

California
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
LoS is simple and not fiddly. I like it the way it is. Would cover rules be more "realistic"? Sure. Do I care? No.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Doesn't bother me. It seems the ones that can shoot back are the ones at an angle that lets them just see around the corner, or have the best perspective to fire back when they are shooting around the corner. The ones that can't shoot back are just in a bad position at all times. Head logic!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R B
United States
Stevens Point
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mb
I agree with what everybody is saying and by no means is the game broken, but we have found LOS to be a little too simple. I don't mind adding a little more complexity (I play hex based strategy games with very complex LOS) and my wife and I don't care about how fast or slow the game goes. I agree this isn't something for everybody, but we're going to try it on our next campaign. I'll post here about my thoughts on it. It's very possible we'll hate it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sheldon Morris
Canada
Fergus
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
stevancorrea wrote:
What I can think up to right now is to add Accuracy when 3 or 4 lines can be traced to the target and/or subtract Accuracy when only 2 lines can be traced. Something like: -2 Ac. for 2 lines, no change for 3 lines, +2 Ac. for 4 lines.

What do you think?

I've thought about using the exact same rule and it appears that we may actually try it out next campaign. It's something that just seems natural to us. Even in our current game we sometimes comment on how certain situations 'should' be using that variant rule.

I'm really looking forward to implementing it next time. Playing it is the only way to find out for sure if you like something or not.
1 
 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.