This was referenced (although only in passing) in the Team Covenant Demo video at about the 16 min mark... Alex stated that if the StormTroopers were down below the bunker out of LOS... they couldn't be shot at and removed as casualties.

So it probably goes without saying that they also cannot shot without LOS.

2 hours ago, Hawkstrike said:

Is this maybe better than immersion-breaking rules in other game systems?

The assumption in odd cases like that is that people aren't just standing still, they're moving around a bit so you'll have people sticking their head out from time to time.

4 hours ago, Palomarus said:

This was referenced (although only in passing) in the Team Covenant Demo video at about the 16 min mark... Alex stated that if the StormTroopers were down below the bunker out of LOS... they couldn't be shot at and removed as casualties.

So it probably goes without saying that they also cannot shot without LOS.

I think that you are right. We won't know for sure until the rules are released, but it seems that range and LOS are two separate things. You measure range (and check for cover) from only the unit leader, but you check for LOS for every figure. If an attacking figure lacks LOS to any figure in the target unit, it does not contribute its dice. If a defending figure lacks LOS to any figure in the attacking unit, it cannot be taken as a casualty. That is the best that I can reconstruct it from the limited data available.

So ... anyone have experience with DropZone Commander want to comment on it vs Legion?

It was on the next tables over at a tournament I attended and I was impressed that it was the scale I wanted from an air-ground wargame.

The activation mechanics alternate by battlegroups, which seems good. The d6 mechanics seem a bit clunky, though.

7 hours ago, Hawkstrike said:

So ... anyone have experience with DropZone Commander want to comment on it vs Legion?

It was on the next tables over at a tournament I attended and I was impressed that it was the scale I wanted from an air-ground wargame.

The activation mechanics alternate by battlegroups, which seems good. The d6 mechanics seem a bit clunky, though.

I loved the look of DZC, even bought core box. I then watched a demo game from a DZC staff member demoing the game.

Good god, how to put people off.

This staff member, moved a team of 3 tank things into the open...but put the front tank sideways on, so the other 2 were hidden behind it...then went on to explain as the other 2 tanks were not targetable by the enemy.....all while he had a smug grin on his face. So basically, 3 tanks move into the open, u can hide the others by have a sideways on tank.

Talk about gamey.....put me off and the box is still on my shelf unpainted and opened just for a look.

4 hours ago, VAYASAN said:

I loved the look of DZC, even bought core box. I then watched a demo game from a DZC staff member demoing the game.

Good god, how to put people off.

This staff member, moved a team of 3 tank things into the open...but put the front tank sideways on, so the other 2 were hidden behind it...then went on to explain as the other 2 tanks were not targetable by the enemy.....all while he had a smug grin on his face. So basically, 3 tanks move into the open, u can hide the others by have a sideways on tank.

Talk about gamey.....put me off and the box is still on my shelf unpainted and opened just for a look.

That sounds terrible for a representation of a battle.

1 hour ago, Megatronrex said:

That sounds terrible for a representation of a battle.

Yup, really put me off in that moment.

Why would you do them when demoing your own game to try make it look attractive even if the rules allow it.

Remember him saying anything shooting at them would only hit he front (sideways ) tank and nothing would hit the others.

When running with the armor group in planet side two, if one tank in the line was being damaged, the tank beside him would pull out and cover for him while he repaired. There was some **** fine coordination in the 666th Armor and Air groups the early days.

8 hours ago, Megatronrex said:

That sounds terrible for a representation of a battle.

32 mins in. Went looking for i in case I had imagined it hehe

Yeah, 40k had a similar tactic where you would have two Armored vehicles drive around sideways butt to butt. Since vehicles in that game could end their turn facing any direction, doing this allowed you to never have to expose the weaker rear armor. Do this with a pair of APCs and you had a movable wall your infantry could advance behind.

Don't get me wrong, infantry advancing behind armor is totally a thing that I'm cool with, but the butt to butt thing was silly rules manipulating.