|
|
Post by dylanjones on Sept 1, 2021 3:25:12 GMT
Please note that this question only relates to NUTS *Big Battles*. Got it.The rules relating to structures in BB don't specify their impact on LOS. I'm left wondering... ....if I have a defending squad set up in a building at the start of the game, is it immediately part of an In Sight test as soon as any enemy unit can draw an unobstructed LOS to the Structure? (i.e. being inside the Structure provides no visual concealment) If they can see out they can be seen. See below......if I have a squad that moves into a Structure from an out-of-sight location during an activation, does that trigger an In Sight Test wit any enemy units that can draw an unobstructed LOS to that Structure? Yes, BUT you can say that you can't see out so can't be seen....can units in Structures at any point claim to be invisible? Yes, but they cannot see out or be seen if they are . Hiding out of sight and being able to see would be a sniper.
And of course, you can tweak the rules to fit if playing solo. If tweaking a rules and playing with someone else jujst nbe sure to tell them the rule before the game. Springing it on them during the game is not a good thing.  |
|
|
|
Post by dylanjones on Sept 5, 2021 20:16:12 GMT
Great - so same would apply to infantry on the edge of a wood? They could say they're keeping their heads down (and so they can't spot anything) and that would mean the enemy couldn't spot them?
And if they subsequently decide to pop up - we're taking an In Sight test?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ed the Two Hour Wargames Guy on Sept 5, 2021 22:40:40 GMT
Great - so same would apply to infantry on the edge of a wood? They could say they're keeping their heads down (and so they can't spot anything) and that would mean the enemy couldn't spot them? And if they subsequently decide to pop up - we're taking an In Sight test? Got it. Heads down is 1" or more from the edge. They move to the edge the In Sight is taken. Think of it as real life. I'm in the woods and out of sight. I move to the edge and we see each other. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Post by dylanjones on Sept 6, 2021 5:09:10 GMT
Yes, although in real life there are plenty of situations where people could be concealed at the edge of woods and still spot enemy marching by in the open without themselves being observed.
But, I'm keen to play the rules as intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ed the Two Hour Wargames Guy on Sept 6, 2021 17:00:48 GMT
Yes, although in real life there are plenty of situations where people could be concealed at the edge of woods and still spot enemy marching by in the open without themselves being observed. But, I'm keen to play the rules as intended. Like in an Ambush or Sniper. You can do it that way if you wanted to though. Give it a try. Easy way is when that happens roll 2d6 - doubles and it's an ambush |
|
|
|
Post by dylanjones on Sept 6, 2021 18:47:32 GMT
Yes, although in real life there are plenty of situations where people could be concealed at the edge of woods and still spot enemy marching by in the open without themselves being observed. But, I'm keen to play the rules as intended. Like in an Ambush or Sniper. You can do it that way if you wanted to though. Give it a try. Easy way is when that happens roll 2d6 - doubles and it's an ambush The problem I find in NUTS BB is that tanks are uber weapons against any infantry they can see. They roll 4d6 for shooting. They tend to travel in platoons of at least two models. (so rolling 8d6). If you play the game that anyone in cover but on the edge can be auto-spotted (which is how the rules are written) then any smart tank driver is going to stand-off from the infantry at (say) 18 inches or so and pound them into dust, with no risk at all to the tanks. This makes for a dull game. Now if you play it as you suggested above that the infantry are hiding more than 1 inch into cover and move up to the edge to ambush there are several issues. The first is that my opponent might rightly complain that if the infantry are in the middle of a wood or town, how do they know the exact right moment to move out to the edge to conduct an ambush? Just because I, as the gamer, can see when his force passing by is at its most vulnerable shouldn't mean that I can pretend my troops have that perception. Secondly, the In Sight mechanics favour the stationary group over the moving group. So now the infantry in cover are disadvantaged by moving up to the edge - which is counter-intuitive. |
|
|
|
Post by Ed the Two Hour Wargames Guy on Sept 6, 2021 20:07:19 GMT
It's not the game, it's the tactics. Why would infantry move towards a tank? You lay in wait and take the tank when it moves to you. Infantry cannot do anything to a tank that can shoot at them from long range. Instead stay in areas where the tanks don't have long range on them such as in a town where the tanks had to go down the street. Or at the edge of the woods near a road that the tank has to go down. Check out the demo below.  |
|
|
|
Post by dylanjones on Sept 6, 2021 21:14:08 GMT
We'll have to agree to disagree. :-)
Infantry stationary in woods should not be automatically visible to a moving tank at great distances. Most wargames rules have a distance restriction on visibility in such circumstances, or require a dice roll to spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ed the Two Hour Wargames Guy on Sept 7, 2021 3:19:43 GMT
We'll have to agree to disagree. :-) Infantry stationary in woods should not be automatically visible to a moving tank at great distances. Most wargames rules have a distance restriction on visibility in such circumstances, or require a dice roll to spot. Good point. The goods news is you can tweak the ruels to fit your ideas. Thanks again for the catch on the older In Sight mechanics. How nbig of a table do you play on? |
|
|
|
Post by easyeight on Sept 7, 2021 17:51:16 GMT
What version of BB are you using? It should be pretty hard for those tanks to spot the infantry in the woods. The In Sight table gives the Stationary infantry in Cover a +1d6, and the unaccompanied tanks a -1d6 on the In Sight test.
The side that wins In Sight can choose to fire or fall back. So if the infantry won, they could just fall back deeper into the woods and the tanks would have no targets to shoot at. You could also interpret the "Can't See Me" rules to align with the In Sight test:
CAN’T SEE ME!
If the Active unit taking the In Sight Test does not pass 1d6 or more d6 than the Stationary unit in Cover, they cannot see the enemy. Non-active units in Cover that are not seen may choose not to fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by dylanjones on Sept 7, 2021 19:10:26 GMT
Thanks both!
I use a 6 x 4 table.
easyeight - not sure what you mean by "what version" of Big Battles. I'm a registered purchaser of the rules on WargameVault. I should get notified if a new version of the rules is uploaded by THW. A new version has never been uploaded in all the time I've owned it.
The points you make re the rules-as-written In Sight test don't match the test in the Big Battle rulebook I'm afraid (see page 9). Yes, the infantry in cover get a plus 1 dice but the tanks do not get a -1 dice. You must be looking at some other rules. And there is no mention that the side winning the In Sight can Fall Back. The only mention of Fall Back is if you *lose* the In Sight and are not in cover!
I do like the "Can't See Me" suggestion though! Pity there is no such rule in the rulebook, but I'll happily adopt it as a house rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ed the Two Hour Wargames Guy on Sept 7, 2021 19:40:10 GMT
Yeah, that rule is news to me too? I never did an updated version. Also, Big Battles was sold to Rebel Minis a few years ago. They do good work as they can offer classic THW titles to new customers.
|
|
|
|
Post by easyeight on Sept 7, 2021 20:49:28 GMT
Huh. I have all sorts of older files, so that's from a 2016 version I have.
|
|
|
|
Post by dylanjones on Sept 7, 2021 21:15:23 GMT
Huh. I have all sorts of older files, so that's from a 2016 version I have. Maybe you could share it here? |
|
