Author Topic: Camouflage and automatic spotting  (Read 1450 times)

Offline chribu

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
  • Karma: +19/-0
  • Keeping track of all the answers
Camouflage and automatic spotting
« on: March 21, 2007, 03:25:27 PM »
Quote
Camouf!age (Level 1-3)
Some Units are adept at blending into their environment,
either from concealing clothing or careful manipulation of
surrounding terrain. When enemy forces that attempt to Fire at
a model with the Camouflage Special AbiIity that is also in Cover:
they suffer a -LV (level) penalty to their RC value.
They suffer a -LV penalty fo their Leadership (LD)
value, in addition to othermodifiers, when making a Spot
Check to locate the Camouflaged model.

Quote
Camoflauged units do not require a spot check to fire on.  The rating only acts as a penalty to LD for making the inital spot check or to all RC attacks.
-PFC joe
a) the cover aspect only affects the RC modifier, not the -LV penalty to LD, right?
b) normally a unit card is automatically revealed (no action or roll required) if unit card is in LD range and LOS of active model. So camouflage reduces the range for automatic spot (unless the unit has other abilities that allow it to remain concealed)?

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Camouflage and automatic spotting
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2007, 03:44:08 PM »
a) Correct.  Camo is only applicable if the model is in cover.
  ex.:  Level 2 camo would affect RC, but only if the model was obscured (within 4" of terrain that covers at least half the model from the firing model).
  ex.:  Level 3 camo only works of the model is either obscured, or is in soft cover.

b)  Correct.  The level of camo would affect the spot check (LD test).  Further, it would decrease the range of auto spotting by the level of the camo.  Therefore, a model with LD 10 would not be able to auto spot a camo unit unles that model was within 8" of a model (card) that has level 2 camo.
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline jjdodger

  • Board Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Karma: +16/-0
Re: Camouflage and automatic spotting
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2007, 07:57:54 AM »
b) Correct. The level of camo would affect the spot check (LD test). Further, it would decrease the range of auto spotting by the level of the camo. Therefore, a model with LD 10 would not be able to auto spot a camo unit unles that model was within 8" of a model (card) that has level 2 camo.

My understanding is that it is not an "auto spot", you must still attempt to spot the model before you can fire upon it.

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Camouflage and automatic spotting
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2007, 04:42:11 PM »
b) Correct. The level of camo would affect the spot check (LD test). Further, it would decrease the range of auto spotting by the level of the camo. Therefore, a model with LD 10 would not be able to auto spot a camo unit unles that model was within 8" of a model (card) that has level 2 camo.

My understanding is that it is not an "auto spot", you must still attempt to spot the model before you can fire upon it.

When within LD in inches, unless the model has Stalk or Stealth, it is automatically spotted.  Camo reduces the range by the level in inches.  Camo'd units are not "invisible," only harder to spot.  Otherwise, they are normal, non-stalking/-stealthy units.

If you are looking for an example, imaging paradeploying on your first activation into the enemy's DZ.  Camo'd units would be harder to "auto-spot."
« Last Edit: March 23, 2007, 04:44:46 PM by dmcgee1 »
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!