Author Topic: A new view about Camouflage  (Read 2186 times)

Offline micmellon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • Karma: +21/-4
A new view about Camouflage
« on: April 28, 2011, 12:57:20 PM »
Camouflage

I was thinking about the Camouflage SA and draw the following conclusions.

A model with camouflage is using the surrounding terrain. Every board has a kind of terrain which is not clearly represented. There are trees, sand dunes, rubble, grass etc. you will not see on the board but do exist. The best example is if you play a game with environment jungle.

At least on our board you will see in the best case a few extraordinary trees but the board is full of trees and plants. A model with camouflage should be able to use the surroundings not shown on the table (like a whole jungle).

With other words, I think camouflage should work always. At least if you play with environment. Of course it is not cumulative with cover but this interpretation explains why camouflage level 1 exists, too.

What are your opinions?
It's just a flesh wound - Black Night

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: A new view about Camouflage
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2011, 02:20:29 PM »
While I agree with your assessment, the rules are quite clear, for now; camouflage only works in conjuction with cover.

On a side note, there is some playtesting going on and once I have the kinks worked out, we may see a revision on this.
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 micmellon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: A new view about Camouflage
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2011, 06:05:20 PM »
This topic is more a open discussion about the topic then a rule question. Camouflage gave me never the feeling that it works how it should be.

To balance the SA, it would be possible to call the parts in the rule book about spotting camouflage models as valid. You can spot the model to avoid the penalty.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 08:20:27 PM by micmellon »
It's just a flesh wound - Black Night

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: A new view about Camouflage
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2011, 03:18:28 PM »
I understood that you wished to discuss, rather than to ask.  You did ask for opinion, and I agreed with your assessment.  ;D
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 Pollo

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Karma: +7/-0
Re: A new view about Camouflage
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2011, 06:11:03 AM »
In Italy we made this house rule:

Camouflage imposes a -1 RC, when Firing, and a -Lvl LD, when Spotting, to enemy models that target the models in Cover or in MP with this ability, or their Unit Card.

Offline micmellon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: A new view about Camouflage
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2011, 02:38:37 AM »
I am looking forward to get a feedback of your new playtested version of camouflage.

Have you already some results? Have you tested different versions?
It's just a flesh wound - Black Night

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: A new view about Camouflage
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2011, 04:19:55 AM »
So far, it has not been found to unbalance the game to allow Camouflage to work under all conditions, even when combined with things such as Smoke, Haze (an environmental effect of our group's design in which a progressive RC modifier is imposed of -1 at MR, -2 at LR and -3 at ER) and/or Night Fighting.  In fact, it seems to add to the flavor of the game, allowing Mirrormen (and similarly camouflaged units) to take advantage of their "fluff."

We still do not allow it to combine with Cover.
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 Pollo

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Karma: +7/-0
Re: A new view about Camouflage
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2011, 04:59:34 AM »
The first version of the house rule allowed to impose a -1 RC ALWAYS active, even with target not behind Cover. But many players (me included) found it not realistic and too advantageous. It was the subject of a strong argument in our community! So I suggested the version above to harmonize the differents points of view, and it works well. It doesn't seem to have overpowered the Camouflaged models at their current PC.

Offline micmellon

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: A new view about Camouflage
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2011, 05:44:43 AM »
When I look threw the different forces I find Camouflage most of the time as an elite trooper SA. It looks for me like a SA for good units and they are normaly expensive ones, too.
It's just a flesh wound - Black Night