N18 Reworking LOS and Cover

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,732
2,614
138
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
I had an idea that could improve the flow of the game. I'm not fan of how subjective full cover versus partial cover can get - this can lead to arguments and even without arguments it could slow the game down, as you are trying to make sure that your fighters are in full cover against enemy gunners.
For example, middle picture could have easily been interpreted as full cover and bottom picture could easily be interpreted as partial cover, if the fighter was even slightly moved to the left or right.

Ekx2Vlfh7rU.jpg
So what if we changed it to be easier to check?

1. If a fighter's model is partially covered by terrain, they count as being in partial cover.
2. If in addition the fighter is in base-to-base contact with a terrain peace that partially covers them relative to shooter, they are considered to be in hard cover.
3. Pinned or Seriously injured fighters in partial or full cover are considered to be out of LOS entirely.
4. Some elements of the battlefield should be assigned as 'insignificant' while players are setting the battlefield. These do not provide partial, nor full cover ever. (This is to prevent silly and gamey things like fighters hiding behind thin lampposts, mesh fence etc)

In theory, this should greatly speed up the gameplay, as you no longer need to check how much of the model is hidden - as long as at least some of it is not visible to the shooter, you are in partial cover. If the model is in base-to-base contact with whatever provided it cover, it is in full cover.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DamianK
For the most part i agree, but my playgroup has pretty much adopted the rule if there is a question, count it as the better cover, especially when the shooter is a champion or leader... There are enough gadgets and skill options to reduce cover (a horrible mechanic imo) they all hit on 2+ when all they can see is a coatsleeve anyway... I will sometimes reduce the cover of my fighters being shot at when i don't think they should get it, and most of the local guys seem to follow this example.

i do like the prone and pinned are out of LoS when behind cover, and will adopt this moving forward.

There would be a few grey areas, for example a sniper on elevation with a lower floor catwalk obscuring all but the feet of the ground level target. The target isn't in contact with the catwalk, but the catwalk should damn sure be providing heavy cover... same with building floors obscuring all of the body but the head, they may not be in contact with the floor in question, but the limited exposed target shouldn't just be imposing a -1.

i'd like to see a model where under 25% obscured is a -1, between 26% and 66% obscured is a -2, and >67% obscured provides a -3 to hit...
 
  • Wow
Reactions: TopsyKretts
i do like the prone and pinned are out of LoS when behind cover, and will adopt this moving forward.
This one is already in the base game, I've listed it to confirm that it remains unchanged.
There would be a few grey areas, for example a sniper on elevation with a lower floor catwalk obscuring all but the feet of the ground level target. The target isn't in contact with the catwalk, but the catwalk should damn sure be providing heavy cover... same with building floors obscuring all of the body but the head, they may not be in contact with the floor in question, but the limited exposed target shouldn't just be imposing a -1.
Perhaps being elevated (target's base is at least 2" higher than the shooter's base) should count as being in partial cover and if in addition the target is partially obscured, than it becomes a heavy cover?
i'd like to see a model where under 25% obscured is a -1, between 26% and 66% obscured is a -2, and >67% obscured provides a -3 to hit...
This one would lead to even slower games I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
I had an idea that could improve the flow of the game. I'm not fan of how subjective full cover versus partial cover can get - this can lead to arguments and even without arguments it could slow the game down, as you are trying to make sure that your fighters are in full cover against enemy gunners.
For example, middle picture could have easily been interpreted as full cover and bottom picture could easily be interpreted as partial cover, if the fighter was even slightly moved to the left or right.

View attachment 170105
So what if we changed it to be easier to check?

1. If a fighter's model is partially covered by terrain, they count as being in partial cover.
2. If in addition the fighter is in base-to-base contact with a terrain peace that partially covers them relative to shooter, they are considered to be in hard cover.
3. Pinned or Seriously injured fighters in partial or full cover are considered to be out of LOS entirely.
4. Some elements of the battlefield should be assigned as 'insignificant' while players are setting the battlefield. These do not provide partial, nor full cover ever. (This is to prevent silly and gamey things like fighters hiding behind thin lampposts, mesh fence etc)

In theory, this should greatly speed up the gameplay, as you no longer need to check how much of the model is hidden - as long as at least some of it are not visible to the shooter, you are in partial cover. If the model is in base-to-base contact with whatever provided it cover, it is in full cover.
I'm all for simplifying game mechanicy. However, cover with true Line of sight will always be problematic, which is why I prefer abstract soultions - after all it doesn't make any sense for the cover to be related to how much of the model is hidden behind an obstacle, since any real human would be trying to bend and duck to make the most of the cover. I like the soultions you have proposed.

I have some other suggestion for how this can be handled: divide terrain into 3 categories: insignificant (same as your idea), light which provides -1 if any part of the model is obscured and heavy which is - 2 when any part is obscured.
 
I have some other suggestion for how this can be handled: divide terrain into 3 categories: insignificant (same as your idea), light which provides -1 if any part of the model is obscured and heavy which is - 2 when any part is obscured.
This is very close to how modern Killteam treats it (and I'll be honest, the OP is heavily inspired by Killteam rules), however I don't think that it'd fit Necromunda very well. It can be tideous trying to distinguish elements of terrain while setting the battlefield up, especially if it is handcrafted like a lot of necromunda players like to do. I'd prefer the solution to be a generic one, that fits all types of terrain.
The 'insignificant' terrain is a exception just to prevent atmospere-ruining moments.
 
Our group attempted to streamline cover by designating a fighter in cover if any two knees or elbows are obscured. We have yet to implement a rule regarding heavy cover, if it is close we just roll a dice but it would be nice to streamline this rule as well. I was considering defining heavy cover as having any three of the targets knees, elbows, and torso obscured
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts