What makes Blood Berets so expensive?? Or: discussion about camo...

[shantaram]

There is one thing i just cant get into my head:

I know some people say, dont compare units. But still, why are Blood Berets that expensive?

Lets take a Venusian Ranger vs. a Bloodberet which are pretty equal in stats and similar in SA (also Imperial and Bauhaus have a similar army structure):

BB costs 31. --- VR costs 25 and has 1 more PW and 1 more AR (PW i dont care too much about, AR i do), not to say, a way better ass rifle.

BB has SA: Camouflage:2, Para-deploy, Survival Training:2 --- VR has SA: Resolve:3, Survival Trainin:3

Let's be tolerant and let's say cam2 and cam3 even eachother out.

Let's say Para-deploy (which i find cool, but also very risky and not always usable) and resolve3 (which is not too bad either) even eachother out, even though i would like resolve better in alot of cases.

This leaves me with two possible reasons, why BBs cost 6 PC (for 4 BBs you can basicly field 5 VRs!) more than VRs:

1. It's because i can select BBs in any Imperial army, no matter what clan i choose whereas i can only select VRs when i choose to play House Sagielli or as support.
(If this is the reason, calculating it would go beyond me)

2. It's because of camouflage. (and i'm still pretty tolerant about the better stats and ass rifle of VRs)
I take it from this forum, that camo IS a highly controversial topic. So if this is the reason for the higher point cost, imo it should be good (like ambush, which is very good and also always usable, so there i can understand the high pc of such models).
I also take it, that you guys dont stack it with cover like we have done so far. Is this because it would overpower a camo unit for its point cost? Because, as i understand it, it ONLY applies when you are in cover. Then there is the terrain effect condition which states, camo is not cumulative with terrain effects. Terrain as i understand it, is not cover but effects of Jungle "terrain", Desert "terrain", Arctic "terrain" etc. as in the book in chapter "terrain". I dont see why terrain ever would have something to do with camouflage because they dont provide cover but anyways... imo if it doesnt stack with cover, why does it not just say so? instead it even says, it applies only in cover...
If however it is played (as i read a few times in the forum), that camo2, for example, is only useful in obscure cover (where it gives a rather poor aditional -1) and smoke, i dont see the high point cost of camo (if of course it actually is the reason why BBs are so much more expensive than VRs).

These are just some thoughts of mine. Maybe somebody likes to discuss this topic with me. I dont necessarily need (official) rules as they are not clear anyways concerning camo. But if you have a good and fair way to play it, i am very open to it Since we probably havent played uwz as much as some of you guys, i cant yet judge if a unit is overpowered or underpowered in terms of balance, but i hope for some oppinions on that too.

Alex

[dmcgee1]

Unfortunately, when comparing apples to oranges, one usually is left with fruit salad; however I will indulge...

Venusian Rangers
Elite trooper, required 4-8 models, mortal.
CC   RC   PW   LD   AC   WD   ST   MV   AR   SZ   PC
 9    11     5     12     3      1      5     3     21     2    25
Equipment:  AG-17 Panzerknacker Assault Rifle.
Special Abilities:  Resolve: 3, Survival Training: 3.

Versus

Blood Berets
Elite trooper, required 4-8 models, mortal.
CC   RC   PW   LD   AC   WD   ST   MV   AR   SZ   PC
 9    11     4     12     3      1      5     3     20     2    31
Equipment:  Invader Assault Rifle.
Special Abilities:  Camouflage: 2, Para-deploy, Survival Training: 2.

The clear difference is, indeed, Para-deploy.  There are many viewpoints regarding the effectiveness of Para-deploy, and as many house rules that have been invented to deal with percieved problems.  There is, also, misunderstanding of how it works and how it should be used.  Camouflage has its uses, and can be combined with smoke and darkness; therefore, if the model is in cover, hidden by smoke and it is night (underground, low light, etc.), it is practically invisible.

In my opinion, Para-deploy is an extremely effective way of keeping your opponent guessing and keeping them on the defensive.  Para-deploy allows the models to deploy anywhere at anytime (with a few limitations).  The discussion of Para-deploy can be found on these forums, and I will not delve into t in this thread.  Suffice to say that Blood Berets' costs are accurate, and that it is Para-deploy that is the major difference.  Could they be a point or two cheaper (or the Rangers a point or two more expensive)?  Who knows?  Our group has not found it to be unbalanced, although, we play more for fun and flavor than for competition. 

[micmellon]

Roundabout 5 points for para deploy is realistic. You will see similar point differences between non para and para units.
Camouflage is a tricky thing. We made a house rule because our experience was that it was difficult to make any use of camouflage.

[dmcgee1]

Do you play with a lot of terrain?  Obscurement is a Cover with which camouflage may be useful, as well as combining it with smoke, darkness, etc.

We always include environment in our games, including light penalties (or the lack thereof) combined with copious amounts of terrain.  This way, units' abilities and specializations are more apt to come into play during a given game.  This is, actually, the way to play the game, and is even mentioned in the rules.

[shantaram]

I certainly didnt want to be nit-picking about this. And we definitely play just for fun and flavour too. But a little competition is always good fun  

It just always left me wondering whenever i fielded 4 Blood Berets while my mate fielded 5 Venusian rangers for the same pc... so I brought up this question.

We probably havent played para-deploy frequently enough for me to tell. But I see your points.

Yeah, i guess we play with a lot of terrain. So am i getting that right, that whenever there is any other source of penalty for enemy rc than cover, camo comes into play? Or does the model also have to be in cover to make use of those sources? Or do you actually think it would make camo too strong if it's just stackable with cover?

Im basicly just looking for a fun house rule for dealing with this, so im open to any ideas.

[dmcgee1]

Remember that there are three types of Cover; Obscurement, Soft Cover and Hard Cover.  Of these, Obscurement is least used, in my experience.  Obscurement occurs when at least half of the model is hidden by intervening terrain, but the model is not in base contact with that terrain.  Further, the rules do state that common sense should be used when figuring To Hit Modifiers (in other words; if the shot is difficult, then subtract 1 or 2 from the To Hit roll).

Camo does not combine with Cover; simply choose the best modifier between the two of them.  Smoke is not Cover, nor is darkness and/or night, therefore, Camo would combine with these, but only if the model is already using Cover (Obscurement, Soft or Hard).

To say it another way, Camouflage is not an invisibility cloak.  It simply confuses the shooter by making the shape of the target harder to discern.  When in Cover, it is effective; when not in Cover, it is not too difficult to shoot at the big Camouflaged blob.

That said, my unofficial opinion is that Camouflage should be more effective, as the model costs more because of it.  Even Guerilla Training allows a -1 To Hit modifier at all times.  Besides, how cool would it be for Mirrormen to be more like their fluff? 

[shantaram]

I can see you get me  (can i give karma, or how does this work?  )

Now that you are mentioning it... The chameleon armor (camo2) does cost 3 pc, if those points actually have meaning in the misc section.

But let me get this straight:

-For instance, we are playing a game where there is a -2 rc penalty at midrange because of darkness, haze or whatever.
-A blood beret is in obscure cover and fired at from midrange.
-the firing model gets a -2 for being in midrange.
-the firing model would get an aditional -1 because of obscure cover, but instead it gets -2 because of camo2.
-so we are at a total of rc -4 for the firing model.

If thats how its played it doesent matter if there is darkness or not, because if it was a golden lion with no camo, the firing model would still get the normal total of -3. We still only have a difference of 1.

Or as i understand your Description:
-We have the obscure cover -1 but instead take -2 of camo, add the darkness -2, AND add lvl camo -2 again for it being stackable with darkness, which adds up to a total of -6.


-In the second instance  i basicly am allowed to stack camo with cover, BECAUSE there is darkness.
-In the first instance it doesnt really matter if there is darkness or not.
-so Imo we are eventually still left with the desicion whether or not we allow camo to be stacked with cover, right? And wheter we always allow it or just when there is any other source of rc penalty.

If i am getting you right, you just allow it when there is such a source.
So if you play by night, the only instance where you dont get the penalty is for example in shortrange if its defined not to give any rc penalty. Any other time it basicly stacks with cover also because there is night.

I'm sorry for the rather long statement. Its not that i'm taking it too seriously, i just like to discuss the rulings of this game

[dmcgee1]

No worries.

Cover may never stack with camouflage.

Therefore, your example of adding cam, than adding camo again is not correct.

When interpreting rules, I find that it is far easier to not read anything into the intent of the rule; rather, simply play it as it reads.  When confusion happens, remember to discuss prior to the next game, and agree upon how it will be played thereafter.

I understand your confusion (I have encountered it, too) but I know no better way to explain it other than to explain that camouflage is as useful as you make it be.

[Lopis]

I can see you get me  (can i give karma, or how does this work?  )

Now that you are mentioning it... The chameleon armor (camo2) does cost 3 pc, if those points actually have meaning in the misc section.

But let me get this straight:

-For instance, we are playing a game where there is a -2 rc penalty at midrange because of darkness, haze or whatever.
-A blood beret is in obscure cover and fired at from midrange.
-the firing model gets a -2 for being in midrange.
-the firing model would get an aditional -1 because of obscure cover, but instead it gets -2 because of camo2.
-so we are at a total of rc -4 for the firing model.

If thats how its played it doesent matter if there is darkness or not, because if it was a golden lion with no camo, the firing model would still get the normal total of -3. We still only have a difference of 1.

Yes the difference is only one, but you have to look into the game mechanics. The "1" as you see it is indeed a bit better if looked upon from the statistic point of view.
Take a standard grunt soldier with a RC 8 and no mods in med-range.

So basically the chance is a 4 with camo or a 5 without camo.
Namely that would be (d20) 20 % hitchance against the camouflage and 25% against the other model.
Since you compared you would have to look upon the relative modification of the hitchance. In this case the Camouflage is a modifier of -20% (relativ) to the hitchance !

I donīt use camouflage often either, but in the comparison the camouflage effect can matter.
Especially if you play with lots of obscured cover on your field.

[shantaram]

@ Lopis: I see your math and you're all right about -1 is always better than nothing.

all I was trying to say though, was that it wouldn't matter if there is any other source of rc-penalty. If it's night or not, the difference in hitchance would remain the same between those models. it either way is "1".

So my question was, why make it that complicated? why the whole thing about night or not? in the first case i stated above, the difference remains the same. in the second, the camo would stack with night but only when in cover.

@ dmcgee1: So i didnt meen to say it DOES stack with cover. What i meant to say was: it's basicly the same thing as stacking with cover then.

And to refere to my first statement of this thread:

Because, as i understand it, it ONLY applies when you are in cover. Then there is the terrain effect condition which states, camo is not cumulative with terrain effects. Terrain as i understand it, is not cover but effects of Jungle "terrain", Desert "terrain", Arctic "terrain" etc. as in the book in chapter "terrain". I dont see why terrain ever would have something to do with camouflage because they dont provide cover but anyways... imo if it doesnt stack with cover, why does it not just say so? instead it even says, it applies only in cover...

the rule sais: "When enemy forces that attempt to fire at a model with the Camouflage Special Ability that is also in Cover: They suffer a -LV penalty to their RC value" (p.70)

It never sais, that it does not stack with cover in the rules. it doesn't explicitly say it would stack with cover either, but it sais it applies only when in cover. All it sais is it wouldn't stack with terraineffects. So where do you get it, that terraineffects are to be taken as cover in terms of rulings?

That's the actual and only reason for my confusion about this. Why tho whole thing about night and smoke etc.? Why make it so difficult, if it doesn't say anything about those things in the rules? Why not just make it stack with cover?

[dmcgee1]

This is, now, degrading into a conversation as to why certain words were chosen to cnvey the rule.  I cannot offer any advice on this matter.

However, terrain effects are not to be confused with other effects (smoke, darkness, etc.).  Further, if one simply asumes that a difference of 1 in 20 is simply 5%, then the math is flawed.  An increase from 1 in 20 to 2 in 20 is a 100% increase in the chance of success, not a 5% increase.  Accordingly, an increase from 2 in 20 to 3 in 20 is a 50% increase in the chance of success.

[shantaram]

I guess youre right about the math. So at night camo is bether because we have an additional penalty, i can see that now.

I m not confusing terrain with night and smoke. I m just saying terrain, as i understand it, is not cover either. In this respect i do care about wording in a rules book.

But i guess we ll figure something out to make it fun to play whilst not making it overpowering.