markhwalker
Posts: 951
Joined: 1/29/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
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
< Message edited by markhwalker -- 9/21/2005 1:20:49 PM >
|