COVER: shatterpointqu... Shatterpoint Stuff: bit.ly/SWP_Jodo Join this channel to get access to perks: / @thejodocast Join Our Discord! / discord Patreon: / thejodocast Twitter: / thejodocast
Пікірлер: 56
@TheMiniJunkie Жыл бұрын
These rules are off-puttingly weird (I haven’t played yet but am learning). The two examples like Maul/Rex and the Droids under the gantry are…dumb?…because there’s nothing in between the minis :/
@RemisRandR Жыл бұрын
Great video, mess of a rule… They were really close to making a really special game, and while I think it’s still fun, there are just a couple rules that are pointlessly complicated and mostly unintuitive
@user-me2du7qb1u Жыл бұрын
I still don’t agree that the droids should get terrain cover from being UNDER a bridge when Rex is on the same elevation as them. That doesn’t seem correct at all!!!! Cover from the token fine, but no way should they get cover from a gantry that’s over their heads on a different elevation! Daft.
@chand9115 ай бұрын
You are right. The rule says it can't pass through terrain higher than the object, so both being under a bridge wouldnt count as cover.
@mcgeeza5281 Жыл бұрын
Great video. I think this weird mess can be more or less sorted by house ruling that the 'draw a line between bases' check should be done in 3D rather than top down. That way you get rid of the silly situations like Maul and Rex getting cover on the gantry and the even sillier one with Rex vs the B1s under the gantry. I'll certainly be playing it this way, but then I won't be taking part in tournament play.
@SeeWeeee9 ай бұрын
Agreed. Easy and intuitive fix.
@The_Rising_Ape Жыл бұрын
Thanks for this, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in general about cover atm. I have a couple of notes for you if you're interested. @3:52 during the example between Maul and Rex on the Gantry. You say "does a line cross over that terrain". That is not what the rule says. it says(Core Rules, Pg 37) "A straight line can be drawn from any portion of the attacking character’s base to any portion of the defending character’s base *through* any number of those terrain parts." As the line passes over but not through the gantry upon which they stand, Maul has no cover. @5:15 when Rex is attacking the Battle Droids you say "a line passes through" when it actually passes *under* the gantry and from the Tarrain rules (Core Rules, Pg 36) we see that "Parts of terrain features are either Clear or Blocked. Clear parts do not block Line of Sight. A gantry with a Passable area underneath would be a Clear part - characters can draw LOS and attack underneath the gantry without issue." and while that is referring specifically to line of sight it can be infered that a "clear" terrain feature offers no cover. I offer these notes, not to be confrontational, but to further the cause of correct cover usage in Shatterpoint. If I'm mistaken, please do let me know as I'd like to avoid these mistakes in my own games.
@TheJodoCast Жыл бұрын
*Qui-Gon voice*: I wish that were so... shatterpointquickguide.com/#measurement "When measuring distance between objects, players should only take the horizontal distance between two objects into account and discount the vertical distance between objects." This line implies that measuring should always discount vertical distance, sandwiching everything to 2D for measurement purposes. This is how the community seems to be going with it, as it was the same in Crisis Protocol. I have yet to see any posts on the rules forum or anywhere else contradicting this assumption. It's weird and I wish it was more clearly defined in the rules. This ruling on the forums confirms that the Maul/Rex example is correct: forums.atomicmassgames.com/topic/11402-cover/#comment-50301 This ruling confirms that the Rex/B1s example is correct: forums.atomicmassgames.com/topic/11110-cover-under-a-bridge/#comment-49394 I don't like it, but that's how it is...
@The_Rising_Ape Жыл бұрын
@TheJodoCast That's mental. Thanks for the clarification, and if that's the way we're playing it, then so be it.
@leejesm Жыл бұрын
@@The_Rising_Ape I actually asked a question on that second "cover under a bridge" example. "What if the bridge was some crazy elevation, like, range 5 above the defending character." no response, yet.
@nmartin857 Жыл бұрын
@@TheJodoCast This is such a ludicrous rule. Basically any time you have a hunker token, you are almost guaranteed to get a cover bonus too. They might as well not even have cover in the game. I will never play the game this way. Shooting at someone standing on the same bridge of you should not result in a cover bonus. Shooting at someone under a bridge that is two-stories above your head, should not result in a cover bonus. This needs to be more intuitive. I tried providing this feedback to AMG, but they shut me down real quick saying they don't take unsolicited feedback on games. Great way to listen to the community. House rules it is until they fix this nonsense.
@thomaskeith2309 Жыл бұрын
@@nmartin857 100% spot on!
@PenguinOverlord45552 ай бұрын
Thanks for the video, these examples did a great job of getting your points across
@Mixxathon Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video. I must say that I am not a big fan of overlly simplified terrain rules, like this one. It would be such an easy fix to add 'and the intervening terrain is of => 1 Inch height' - that would make muchmore sense than what we have now.
@davidlein2438 Жыл бұрын
I agree with this except the 1" thing. Only because they don't use inches. But, all they'd have to do is call it size 1.
@rosshampson631 Жыл бұрын
I've been looking through the rules to try and find something that supports line of sight being "measured" or any reference to it being two dimensional. As far a I can discern from the written rules line of sight is judged by just a single line base to base and therefore has verticality. The only measurements in the game seem to be range, movement and height of scenery. 😕
@TheJodoCast Жыл бұрын
see: shatterpointquickguide.com/#measurement "players should only take the horizontal distance between two objects into account and discount the vertical distance between objects." As far as I can tell, this is the only reference to "make everything 2D when measuring" in the whole rulebook. People are taking it to be this way because this is how it is in Crisis Protocol.
@Bloodfencer1990 Жыл бұрын
@@TheJodoCast It's also the reason why they added the condition to have a Hunker token. Otherwise you would always benefit from cover when standing on top of terrain features.
@TheJodoCast Жыл бұрын
@@darron3397 You'd think so. There are posts on the rules forums confirming it's top-down 2D nature though. Here's one: forums.atomicmassgames.com/topic/11327-line-for-cover-check-going-through-or-just-overlap/#comment-50104
@minipaintingforyou Жыл бұрын
Getting cover from standing on top of the same piece of terrain as the attacker is so stupid. These rules are clearly designed with an empty table and only specific Shatterpoint terrain sets in mind. No regards for sculpted tables or other styles of terrain. Is my hill a piece of terrain or not? If yes, where does it begin and where does it end. I'm going to play with true line of sight and ignore most of the los rules, because they are so unintuitive. Thank you for sharing!
@davidlein2438 Жыл бұрын
If your hill is higher than range 2, it is now a different piece of elevation. That part is in the rules. That's how they determine elevation.
@Tibbyvc-rb7od10 ай бұрын
First off: Sculpted tables suck. Second: These rules don't even work with Shatterpoint designed sets.
@zackduncan5219 Жыл бұрын
All of this is perfectly fine except for not benefitting from cover unless you have a hunker token and also the example of Rex shooting Maul. In absolutely no scenario should Maul gain cover from the bridge he's standing on. That's the absolute dumbest thing I've ever seen and I refuse to play it like that lol
@xjimtayx Жыл бұрын
I don't get that one either. That's like calling the play mat terrain
@TheJodoCast Жыл бұрын
I think requiring a Hunker works since it speeds the game up, reducing the number of times you'll need to check for cover. And for the stupid bridge scenario, at least now you can think that character with the hunker token is like actively combat rolling or flipping around or something idk. It's very silly.
@BreezingThrou Жыл бұрын
Think that is bad, any one standing on the bridge that is off screen to the right can shot through the building and hit Ani, who does not get benefit of cover because he is not hunkered.
@willlewis3142 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for making this… it’s an awesome resource for me to point new players to!
@Bloodfencer1990 Жыл бұрын
You made a mistake in the example with Kalani and the clone trooper: because the terrain feature is the same elevation as Kalani, the trooper does not benefit from cover. He would have cover if their positions were swapped, i.e. the clone trooper would benefit from having the high ground.
@TheJodoCast Жыл бұрын
"The defending character must be within Range 1 of one or more terrain parts at the same or higher Elevation than the attacking character." The clone is within range 1 of the building, which is at the same elevation as Kalani, the attacking character. Unless i'm missing something here. I feel like there should be an additional bullet saying Terrain the attacking character is overlapping doesn't count.
@Bloodfencer1990 Жыл бұрын
@@TheJodoCast You seem to be misreading the rule that you're quoting. It says that the defending character must be within range of terrain as the same or higher elevation as the attacker. Which means that if the Attacker is on a higher elevation the troooer does not get cover. But if the trooper is on the higher elevation they get cover.
@TheJodoCast Жыл бұрын
@@Bloodfencer1990 Ah. You're saying the sentence says the *defending character* must be at the same or higher elevation than the attacker. I'm reading it as the *terrain* must be at the same or higher elevation as the attacker. I could see how it could be interpreted both ways. This might be one for the rules forum.
@TheJodoCast Жыл бұрын
@@Bloodfencer1990 I submitted this question to the rules forums to see exactly what that bullet point means! I appreciate you pointing this out.
@Bloodfencer1990 Жыл бұрын
@@TheJodoCast Let me know how they answer, but I do believe that the intention is for characters at higher elevations to have an advantage, whether for attacking or defending.
@BreezingThrou Жыл бұрын
6:43 if a ranged attack from (anyone) the is standing to the platrom on the right of the screen, standing on them 2nd level (same as Ani), targets Ani (let us assume it is within range of attack, and make it more interesting at that Ani is 100% behind that vent portion). Is ah attack from then2nd level bridge, still have LoS? With the building only being less then size 2, and Ani not having hunker, in the rulesmit says he is in Los, with no cover, even with that terrain blocking the real world view?
@TheJodoCast Жыл бұрын
I think I get the situation you're saying. You are correct. Line of sight and no cover. In that situation they'd have LOS to anakin, and he would not have cover from the terrain because he doesn't have a hunker token. Sounds like you might have come from MCP? Buildings don't have "sizes" like MCP. we just worry about their elevation. Here's my video about how to determine LOS: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r9uFa5x9nNfWf4E.html
@leejesm Жыл бұрын
Gantries can be considered clear, why not bridges? if a ranged character and it's target are both on the mat, and neither are next to any terrain, but the ranged character is shooting under a bridge, you don't even have line of sight (no matter how high the bridge, btw), but it doesn't have to be that way. make it clear. yes, it does mean that you could shoot directly under the bridge from standing on top of it, but I don't think that's too bad. Maybe house rule that the bridge is only clear terrain when character and target are on the same elevation?
@TheJodoCast Жыл бұрын
yeah bridges should be clear. The above/below targeting thing only feels really weird to me if you had like a super wide platform. When it's narrow enough it's easy to picture the shooter scooting to the edge to take the shot
@TheJodoCast Жыл бұрын
Also worth noting Blocked/Clear are terms that only effect LOS and are irrelevant to checking Cover.
@Tibbyvc-rb7od10 ай бұрын
Games recently have been making the rules for cover so needlessly complex (Kill team)... but this may be the absolute worst ruleset concerning cover yet. I love everything else about this game... but this sucks so badly.
@ZodiusXx10 ай бұрын
5:07 how are they within range 1 of the gantry? The gantry is higher than range 1 from them?
@TheJodoCast10 ай бұрын
"When measuring distance between objects, players should only take the horizontal distance between two objects into account and discount the vertical distance between objects." shatterpointquickguide.com/#measurement
@ZodiusXx10 ай бұрын
@@TheJodoCast but that's so stupid when you somehow get cover from something like a gantry that's above you, despite being on a ground level with nothing actually in front of you
@Son0fAggression Жыл бұрын
this is an abolute shit show of a rule. Don't believe i've seen a worse LoS rule in a game before...
@SeeWeeee9 ай бұрын
New to the game. They clearly tried to make these rules easy. By doing that, they made them inane and completely counterintuitive. Which translates to hard and clunky. I hate them, and they are putting me off of the game.
@TheJodoCast9 ай бұрын
I felt the same way and then after a few games you realize that the cover rules absurdity is largely irrelevant and ends up just speeding the game up. it becomes sort of a weird quirk at worst. In my experience anyway