Matrix Games Forums

You're right crabe. The +4 makes bocage very, very tough even without the need to spot. And I think your explanation is probably just what the dev team would say too. I would still like to hear the logic behind the whole thing from Mark or the team. You certainly didn't "disturb" me with your answers. In fact, because you and I saw this thing in the same way at first, I knew I wasn't completely nuts.

I'd say that you could have the same problem with the idea that units in degrading terrain need to be spotted, but you can see straight through it to a unit that is in a clear hex one space away-no spotting necessary.

The hedgerow should block LOS. I don't have my game yet (Tuesday), but I will change the rule myself if the hedgerow does not block it.

It does block LOS. Says so plainly on the TEC. Doesn't block it you're adjacent, nor should it. If it blocked LOS to adjacent units the game would be unplayable, I mean you could never shoot at a unit adjacent to a bocage hexside. That doesn't sound right, does it? I appreciate all te input, but I must say that you all seem to have confused yourselves. I see no problem with the bocage rules as written.

Best,
Mark

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

The hedgerow should block LOS. I don't have my game yet (Tuesday), but I will change the rule myself if the hedgerow does not block it.

It does block LOS. Says so plainly on the TEC. Doesn't block it you're adjacent, nor should it. If it blocked LOS to adjacent units the game would be unplayable, I mean you could never shoot at a unit adjacent to a bocage hexside. That doesn't sound right, does it? I appreciate all te input, but I must say that you all seem to have confused yourselves. I see no problem with the bocage rules as written.

Best,
Mark

Mark,

Interesting how you can just stroll in here, slap us all around, and tell us to get back to gaming! Thanks, we needed that!

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

The hedgerow should block LOS. I don't have my game yet (Tuesday), but I will change the rule myself if the hedgerow does not block it.

It does block LOS. Says so plainly on the TEC. Doesn't block it you're adjacent, nor should it. If it blocked LOS to adjacent units the game would be unplayable, I mean you could never shoot at a unit adjacent to a bocage hexside. That doesn't sound right, does it? I appreciate all te input, but I must say that you all seem to have confused yourselves. I see no problem with the bocage rules as written.

Best,
Mark

Excellent response. We're idiots. Thanks Mark.

I'm sorry Mark. I disagree. I do not believe the rules are clearly written when it comes to hexside terrain. The fact that this thread has gone on for as long as it has, and that so many have posted should be the tip-off to that.

I think you misunderstand the question here. We are not talking about bocage making it impossible for two adjacent units, separated by bocage to see each other.

Once again, here's the example.



The question is, does B need to spot A before A can be attacked? Or, since A is in clear terrain, the bocage has no effect on B's ability to spot A, and A is clearly visible?

Now the rules imply that A is absolutely visible, i.e. B does not need to spot A. To me, this seems counterintuitive when I consider the nature of bocage and of the fighting in hedgerow country. In other words, a squad in brush needs to be spotted, but a squad behind bocage is fully exposed. That just doesn't sound right to me.

If left to my own devices, I would assume that A would need to be spotted by B, before A could be attacked, and that B would need to make a spotting roll as if A were in blocking terrain of 2 or less.

Or...is my head completely up my keester, and I'm missing the point entirely? That's been known to happen before.

Either way, they are your rules, and I wouldn't disrespect you by debating them. I just want to know how they work, and if possible the logic behind them.

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Magua

Now the rules imply that A is absolutely visible... I would assume that A would need to be spotted by B, before A could be attacked... they are your rules, and I wouldn't disrespect you by debating them. I just want to know how they work, and if possible the logic behind them.

Magua I think from what Mark has posted here and at Consim - the rules don't "imply" at all - they are clear:

Mark W: At ConsimWorld

If you are adjacent to hedge, wall, or bocage you are "automatically" spotted if the spotting unit has clear LOS to you and you are in clear/open terrain.

Otherwise Bocage does completely block LOS.

As for logic - it's a design decision for playability. In reality we shouldn't even know that unit counter "A" is there but we do. Your unit "A" is in reality occupying open ground.

Imho, given your map example, I wouldn't consider it to be a typical bocage ambush situation. Give me an example where every 50 meter hex is surrounded by Bocage and then we get into the meaty situations of ambush, spotting and guile. Then the current rules would shine and the opp fire fly.

My .02 on the logic but the rules are clear.

Adam.

But more importantly, why has not one single member of the dev team stepped in here to clear this whole thing up? This discussion has been going on for a week now. This is all very discouraging.

Hey Pal,

Hannes is dev team, Crabe is Dev team. Just because there isn't a @matrixgames email (in fact no one at Matrix had anything to do with rule or scenario development), doesn't mean folks don't know what they aretalking about. Additionally we have all stepped in, on numerous occassions, in multiple areas. Did you check ConSimWorld or Lock 'n Load's home page? I try to get around, but don't make it to all the boards I'm monitoring.

I didn't mean to slap anyone around, but the rules ARE clear as written. Additionally, saying "it doesn't seem right" without a full knowledge of the rule book is really counterproductive.

As the rules state, spotting is status and hex driven, not hexside driven. If I changed the rule so that units behind bocage needed to be spotted the next question would be, why don't units behind walls, and then someone would ask why don't units behind hedges, and then why don't we need to spot units when we see them through two hexes of degrading terrain, and then how about one hex of degrading terrain, and then should you be able to spot Low Crawling units behind bush, and then twelve pages worth of rules later all the questions would be solved, and the game would be one step closer to ASL's 300-page rulebook, and not one whit better.

These are design decisions that I made, keeping in mind that although I want a game that plays realistically, I want --above all else-- a game that plays. Sometimes, the simpliest rule change --for example allowing the creation of half-squads or requiring units behind bocage to be spotted-- can led the design down a slippery slope.

As it now stands, bocage is a big help, and it does conceal units, but NOT if you are adjacent to it.

Best,

Mark

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

... and the game would be one step closer to ASL's 300-page rulebook, and not one whit better.

Yep. I started to re-read my ASL book this week and my favorite section is the nearly full page on what to do if you find a leader alone in a hex.

Hoping to have my LnL game by the weekend. Looking forward to those "counters that just fall out" without cut n' trimming.

ASL became so repetitive after a while. I think the activation, movement and fire restrictions of LnL will give a very fresh feel. I'm just a bundle of curiosity here Mark, so much I just have no idea of what's ahead.

Cheers,
Adam.

ASL became so repetitive after a while. I think the activation, movement and fire restrictions of LnL will give a very fresh feel. I'm just a bundle of curiosity here Mark, so much I just have no idea of what's ahead.

Cool, Adam. I hope that you like it. Although I frequently hold ASL up as an example of what I DON'T want to do with LnL, it IS a landmark game, and truly a lot of fun to play... it's just hard to get your arms around the rules.

Best,

Mark

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

But more importantly, why has not one single member of the dev team stepped in here to clear this whole thing up? This discussion has been going on for a week now. This is all very discouraging.

These are design decisions that I made, keeping in mind that although I want a game that plays realistically, I want --above all else-- a game that plays. Sometimes, the simpliest rule change --for example allowing the creation of half-squads or requiring units behind bocage to be spotted-- can led the design down a slippery slope.

As it now stands, bocage is a big help, and it does conceal units, but NOT if you are adjacent to it.

Best,

Mark

A "design decision" is good enough for me. And I too worry about the danger of an ASL slippery slope.

So, okay. I've got that down. To tell you the truth, after just a few plays, the routine of play becomes second nature. It's very logical and intuitive.

Gracias.

http://www.geocities.com/revenuo/bocagehellok.pdf
Hi. This is a PDF file for bocage example. It strictly follows the rules.
Currently playing "brothers in arms". Great scenario.

I hope that further rules questions will be answered with a bit more civility. Some people are buying a LnL game for the first time, and would like to feel good about the folks they are supporting. I've had a hell of a time with my copy already, so a little goodwill by the dev. makes friends of people that will champion the system in the future(and buy expansions). Also, most people here don't know enough to check Consimworld and the LnL site, the game is published by Matrix, so cross posting here may be a good idea.

That said, I am very pleased with the game. Good, solid rules, fun and damn nice to look at.