It is. Jump gets you no cover - ergo - no cover. Simplicity itself. (To be honest - it works. Why? Because in general - the rules tend towards 'every "fire"action occurs at the optimum point in the "action" for maximum benefit' - you got caught in the air with no cover. Skeet shooting style.)
You can fix the "TAG behind fire hydrant" absurdness and still keep it fast: "these items give cover to S1 to Sx only. Touch them, they get cover. All other S get no cover there." Make a list of items and S (fire hydrants S1; mail boxes, trash bins and small flower pots S1-S2; etc), or just 3 groups (decoration, cover for S1-Sx, everyone). No discussions, no ultraweird cases, minimal time lost (table check, or just remember... but never discussions).
Having a 2 minute discussion before a game so both you and your opponent are on the same page when it comes to the terrain is a bad thing? I thought it was fairly standard practice and common courtesy to do a quick review of the terrain as well as open information, and during this process to can easily just go that curb, random street greeblie, lamp post, fire hydrant and the tabs extending from the building (think the kaldstom buildings) don't provide cover. One of our locals has a MDF board with street curbs and other random 3d elements, and if I argued that I got cover because of them I'm fairly sure my opponents (or at the very least the TO) would start forcibly applying a heavy and blunt object to my brain pan until I stopped being an idiot. Its going to be one of those common sense things, also as was said in a recent interview (paraphrasing), why is there a fire hydrant there and not an actual terrain piece? That discussion pretty much prefaces every game in my community especially if one of the players isn't one of the weekly regulars or from out of town, cleans up so much stuff and mitigates the "I thought I was in full cover!", "No, that's a low vis heavy sat zone" discussions that would be guaranteed to show up otherwise.
I'm genuinely perplexed that the fact the new rules might require some table discussion is considered new or challenging? Do some people just genuinely not play very often? Or are these conversations not something they do on the regular?
Alternatively, they either want to pull some gotcha bullshitshit because they feel they need that edge or they are just whinging about a non issue due to boredom.
It's very simple, if you believe something should give one of your models cover I will give you a piece of chipboard cut to the same scale versus your height IRL. Then we'll take it outside the LGS where I'll give your opponent a bucket of wrenches to throw at you while you protect yourself with your "cover". If you're still standing after he's done your model gets cover.
jumping never allowed for cover, the same as climbing. Where is the change in there? also, I've seen tables with lamps, yes, but only at interplanetario by certain companies putting their special promotional tables, or some special tables from a big club. Most tables have scatter terrain big enought so a TAG could get cover but also could move through it without problems and places where they got total cover too, but not lamps, hydrants and so. mine for example have a few pallets, but because they bring low gameplay by themselves, I use litle boxes with them, that bring special features, like boxes that usually don't give total cover, give it thanks to the extra height of the pallet, or give troopers a bit extra in LoV. I have to build some elevators (which usually arent either inside buildings) and external stairs. Those external stair usually were decoration because they were not big enough (but way bigger than lamp posts), now they will have more usefullness and interesting options at the table dessign process
This should be a separate thread, but what the hell. I am happy that CB is streamlining cover rules. I'm willing to accept exotic edge cases that may seem unrealistic just to avoid much more common dilemmas that break the flow of the game. We could have endless discussions about the mechanisms of jump-shooting: about how you need to jump high enough to actually aim your gun, that you have limited control mid-air, that your aim suffers... but do we REALLY need to address all this? Keeping it simple and accepting that once every 1000 games you'll hit a lamp post instead of a TAG is perfectly fine. This is supposed to be a game, not a simulation. Besides, if your tactics relied on 'fun' exploits like jumping 1mm over an obstacle and shooting a gun with your forehead while taking cover, then CB not catering to you is a good thing.
I really don't understand the problem with the "superjump" rule. It is almost the same as in N3 and there it works fine. Now is simplier because in fact you do "movement", so if in a fireteam you can move superjumping and the others guys stil could move. No cover while superjumping? Is not a surprise, you know before take the "superjump" so, think about it and choose if do it or not to do it. Simple. Sometimes is really hard to take meassures horizontally, not speak vertically + horizontally. So, keep it simple. In this "rule" we don't need more "complexity". Back in N2 superjump was "awful" because people don't move the figure, they only said: "I shoot from here, where nobody more can see me and where I have cover against your ARO" and asked to move the figure and place in the spot he wanted it was only a matter to prolongate the game a lot and maybe an argument, so, welcomme the simplicity here. Same if the cover can be taken now simplier... I truly never understand the necesity of that 1/3, which was more problematic than helpfull, now, if the enemy can't see your whole "half" silhouette, then you gets cover. The only "complexity" remain now is the 3x3 mm square of the "sil."
What? Do you have information about Fireteam rules changes we don´t? Does Fireteams no longer need to declare the exact same skills?
