Well, the Revised Core Rulebook is up for download. So what's new?

- Observers now can use their first action to call for Artillery Strike, the artillery walker resolves its indirect fire, then the Observer can still take his second action to do whatever he wants.

- We now have a third class of action, adding to MOVE and SHOOT we now have SKILL which apparently is just the use of an Anility that consumes an action.

- Buildings and hangars are gone. Now it's all buildings with either large or small entrances.

- Small entrances do not provide corner cover and it seems in order to trace LOS you need to really look at the precise spot where the entrance wall stops. This will surely lead to all sorts of arguments over whether the LOS is being block by that little bit of wall or not...

I see no mention of how Artillery interact with buildings.... sigh.... I don't think they even mention artillery ignoring cover in this book.

I think there were more arguments about the small piece of wall not blocking LOS. Now its very concise like it should be. with a piece of string, striaght line, etc, there can be no argument.

blkdymnd said:

Yeah, well, at least now we know how we're supposed to handle that. But it's much easier to calculate LOS against obstacles situated precisely at the corner of a square, than against a point somewhere along its edge.

- Units with Jump are no longer able to jump over vehicles. When joining a hero to a squad and one of them has Jump, the other must too.

- Wiederbelebungsserum got a new name, but the rules are still as strange as before. As I understand, the hero must inflict a number of wounds against an enemy, then he must be attacked by ANOTHER enemy and survive, he then heals the number of wounds he inflicted on that previous enemy. Am I the only one who's finding this extremely clunky?

- New Medal of Honor ability sounds cool. You get to reroll a die each round.

- Burst Weapon is as strange as in the FAQ as well. You roll twice the amount of dice against a target that hasn't moved during the current round. And what if nobody remembers whether that unit who was the first to act that round, 20 minutes ago, performed a MOVE+SHOOT or a SHOOT+SHOOT action?

- Oh, SHOOT has been renamed ATTACK. Wise decision, considering that more and more attacks are not actual shots.

The wieder-blah-blah-serum I agree is a bit clunky. Sort of a bank of saved wounds. I guess we'll just carry a die on totenmeisters card.

With the Wiederblah, I wonder if they just chose a very poor example to explain the ability (sorry, Skill), and all it really means is that when the hero inflicts wounds on a target she can heal from any wounds she sustained PRIOR to this particular engagement. It's just weird that it's only in the example that this aspect of "wounds from the previous fight" comes in. The first paragraph where the skill itself is explained makes no mention of any of that. The explanation makes it seem quite simple and straightforward (inflict wounds, recover equal health at the end of combat), but the example muddles everything.

And I wonder if those wounds must have been inflicted by the hero's own weapons, or can they be from those of the squad she joined. HOLD ON, the example never mentions how many HIT results TotenMeister scored, shouldn't that be the key factor in determining how much health she can recover?!

I see the winder-burten-sausage as a sort of leech, vampiric touch, abitliy. Know what I mean? I agree that the exemple is not a happy one

I mean the example decribes in the rules (hate there is no edit button!!!)

Yeah, the idea of the power is made very clear by the part of the text in bold. It's a leech/vampire thing, you inflict wounds to cure your wounds. But the example makes a right mess of it all. In the first combat, when TotenMeister decimated an ally squad and suffered 3 wounds, why can't she then heal as many wounds as she inflicted once the combat is over? Why does she have to wait until another squad attacks her and she survives? The example doesn't even mention her inflicting or taking any wounds in this second combat, so why is it of any relevance?

Humm... unless the key here is all these close combats they mention. I'm guessing TotenMeister only has C range attacks. The reson she doesn't recover wounds after the first combat is that, since C is simultaneous, she didn't have any wounds at the time she injured the enemy. So on the second attack, with her now being injured, she'll recover one wound for every wound she inflicts. Still, they don't really mention that she wounds the enemy on the 2nd combat.... However, the rules do say "He recovers health after all weapon lines are resolved." so in the 1st combat, she would already be injured after all weapon lines are resolved, so shouldn't she heal?

I'm thinking I better just stay away from this figure....

"- Observers now can use their first action to call for Artillery Strike, the artillery walker resolves its indirect fire, then the Observer can still take his second action to do whatever he wants."

"- We now have a third class of action, adding to MOVE and SHOOT we now have SKILL which apparently is just the use of an Anility that consumes an action."

This isn't anything new they just make it simple for themselves to tell you in future expansions that stuff with skill consumes 1 action. All the abilities that consumed an action still do.

"- Buildings and hangars are gone. Now it's all buildings with either large or small entrances."

Good with the entrances that seemed to be odd b/c when my friend and I were playing it was wierd fitting a walker through a small entrance of a hangar.

"- Small entrances do not provide corner cover and it seems in order to trace LOS you need to really look at the precise spot where the entrance wall stops. This will surely lead to all sorts of arguments over whether the LOS is being block by that little bit of wall or not..."

This is why I say on my blog use a laser leveler. It's easy to use to determine it.

"I see no mention of how Artillery interact with buildings.... sigh.... I don't think they even mention artillery ignoring cover in this book."

Well in Cyclone it says:

"Artillery weapons (range A) can never be used inside buildings! They would hit the ceiling before having the chance to reach an enemy! For this reason, when you play a scenario that takes place inside a base (grey tiles), you cannot use any weapons with range A. No wise artilleryman would ever take such a risk."

I would assume this means you could not fire into a building for the same reasons. But, this is not mentions anywhere in the Revised Core what so ever. I would say the slim chance of you being able to pull it off go a head. I mean the only way you'll be able to is when either a unit is at the entrance to a building or when 2 units are in a building.

arkangl said:

Wow, someone agrees with me! Well, I sent FFG a question about this whole issue. Hope they answer it.

Question, can these guys attack each other?

They certainly have LOS to each other, and the axis squad is standing in a square showing an exit... Only they wouldn't be shooting through that exit. I'm thinking they can't shoot each other, the squad inside the building must be next to the exit through which the attack comes.

I think they cannot. See opposite corner's rule. Clearly it is written you cannot attack your target even if you get a line of signt.

I don't think it's an "opposite corners" issue, since the line between them isn't touching any corners at all, it goes cleanly through the doorway with room to spare.

Loophole Master said:

Methinks...

So what are you saying, Poyet? Can they shoot each other or not? I didn't quite understand what you meant by your post, entrances exist only in intersection, what?

No, as its not shooting out of an adjacent exit.

Slowly reading this. Not a big fan of PDF reading and on vacation so cant print it out at the moment. But I noticed a complete lack of Fluff. Hopefully that will be in the scenario book. Guess we will have to see.

I also hope that this PDF release means that the new set will be out very shortly!

I think in this case it is assumed that troops use the best possible cover and terrain. At least I thought I read that in the book.

Poyet said:

Id say no as the exit is not adjacent and you would still be shooting through a square inside the structure. It would be no different than shooting at the death dealers in the example given on pg. 17.

From the Example on pg. 17

"Example: The Hammers are inside a structure, so they are in Hard Cover against
shots coming from the Sturmpioniere. However, the Sturmpioniere cannot target
the Death Dealers because the Death Dealers’ space does not have an exit in the
direction of the Sturmpioniere. This also applies to the Death Dealers, who cannot
target the Sturmpioniere.

If the Death Dealers move to the space marked “X,” they will be able to target the
Sturmpioniere, and vice versa. The Death Dealers would then be in Hard Cover
against the Sturmpioniere’s attack."

I would say you are allowed to make the shot based on the text from the examples. It doesn´t say you aren´t allowed to shot through a square inside a building, it just says that the space the target occupies must have an exit in the direction of the shooter, which it has.

Yea I would say no b/c the way the wording of the rules sounds like you need to be looking out the door not through another. That would be like your squad is at a door on one side of the building and able to shoot through the door on the opposite side of the building bc they are at a door they must be able to shoot through any door.

Did anyone notice they took out Fighting Spirit?

Perhaps you are right about that the shots must go through the exit of the space the target is standing on (seems reasonable to me), but it is not clear in the rules and it is not saying that it is not allowed to shot through another door. It just says the target must stand in a space with an exit in the direction of the shooter. Meaning it could not be an exit on the opposite side of the building nor on the sides sinse it wuld not be in the direction of the shooter. Now the wording "in the direction of" could mean that it must be through the same exit that the target is standing on, and if it is it is the poorest try to explain something that simple. Regardless of how it should be, it sure could be explained better and should be enterd to the FAQ.

Yeah, it certainly isn't worded in the best way possible. But I do believe that the "in the direction of the shooter" is supposed to mean "in the direction in which the attack is made", meaning that LOS must be traced through the entrance next to which the unit is standing.

Page 17 reads:

• In order for a unit inside a structure to attack an enemy unit outside a structure, the attacking unit must be on a space that shows an exit in the direction of the attack.
  
• In order for a unit outside a structure to attack an enemy unit inside a structure, the enemy unit must be on a space that shows an exit.

I agree it could be worded alittle better by adding " shows an exit in the direction of the attack." to the 2nd bullet. The rules have been pretty consistant that the LOS/attacks must be able to go both ways barring range. The example helps clear it up some. In Loopholes example the shot is not coming through an exit in the direction of the attack but instead a facing that is inside the structure.

Yeah, I think we're settled on that one. They can't attack each other. How about this one? I don't have many doubts about this one, but I thought I'd run it by you guys:

Two units attacking each other from different buildings. I don't see any problem with this (as long as they both have range 6 weapons)

- They have LOS to each other. And while the tank can't walk through that small entrance, I think he can shoot through it, right?

- They are both inside buildings, but inside different ones, so I think this would be handled as both attacks coming from the outside. The squad would get hard cover, but the tank would get none cause tanks don't use cover.