I would definitely question the balance, as camo'd specialists have been dominant in gameplay for a while now. But I understand what they were trying to do. But then again this issue never stressed me out that much.
Having just played this scenario twice with same list going first then second... I find it depends on what both sides brought to the table as to how it flows. The saturation zone limits ARO potential and I agree you can designate and cap 5 antennas in one turn to cement points in your favor (which is exactly what I did) but the point is really it is hard to get all of those factors without addressing terrain layout and how much it messes with thos scenario. So not so simple to call it way or another in my mind. Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I am aware an reason was given, it's just a terrible one and completely irrelevant to the situation. The stacking mods like ODD etc are completely ineffective at protecting these hidden models when they're out of LOF, they don't apply because you can't target the model in the first place. If you can target them because you're using sniffers and sat lock, they don't apply anyway. Making the entire chain of reasoning completely null and void. Putting that aside I find the argument of balance being a good reason for this ridiculous conceptually. There are 9 40mm bases on the table at most. Do not stand your ODD model on that base, it's the same principle as don't bunch your ODD models next to cheerleader or you're going to eat templates. The only way to argue this is OP is to argue that templates are OP in their own right.
Unless you apply the structure rulea to the entire table... now keep your range mod guy away from destructible terrain. The rule was written with that in mind, not the ITS only. Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
As has been said many times, scenery objectives should follow their own rules, not the non standard rules for non standard play.
If you wish to discuss it, by all means do, but maybe be open to... discussion? I do think that the rule question has been answered and that we're way off topic. Maybe open a discussion in the ITS forum if you want to exchange ideas or provide feedback?
