Just to be sure:
A squad can jump over...
...another squad (friend or foe).
...an obstacle (like water).
...a building.
A squad can not jump over...
...a vehicle (friend or foe).
A vehicle can jump over...
...an obstacle (like water or a tank-trap).
A vehicle can not jump over...
...another squad (friend or foe).
...a building.
Is that correct?
Not quite
A squad can jump over...
...another squad (friend or foe).
...an obstacle (like water).
...a building.
A squad can NOT jump over...
...a vehicle (friend or foe).
...a terrain square (walls)
A vehicle can jump over...
...a squad (friend or foe).
...an obstacle (like water or a tank-trap).
A vehicle can NOT jump over...
...a vehicle (friend or foe).
...a building.
...a terrain square (walls)
Thank you for your reply Loophole Master. These rules are from the Revised Edition? That's the one I'm using.
And I'm not sure I understand: apparently a squad can jump over a building but not over a wall? Sounds strange to me...
The "walls" originally were designed to represent weight-bearing pylons for an indoor base, which would mean that you couldn't jump over them because you would be bashing into the ceiling/roof. There's nothing stopping your group from saying that they represent walls that can be jumped over in your own games.
Wombattangofoxtrot said:
Well, nothing other than the rules, which say "Units cannot jump over a space without a dot (a terrain square or a vehicle)."
But I agree that it is strange that you can jump over a multi-storey building but not a wall. And even stranger that you can jump over a building, but not over the walker that fits inside the building.
Loophole Master said:
Wombattangofoxtrot said:
Well, nothing other than the rules, which say "Units cannot jump over a space without a dot (a terrain square or a vehicle)."
But I agree that it is strange that you can jump over a multi-storey building but not a wall. And even stranger that you can jump over a building, but not over the walker that fits inside the building.
That's why I said that they could do it in their games. Not officially, of course.
Wombattangofoxtrot said:
The "walls" originally were designed to represent weight-bearing pylons for an indoor base, which would mean that you couldn't jump over them because you would be bashing into the ceiling/roof. There's nothing stopping your group from saying that they represent walls that can be jumped over in your own games.
Ah, ok. The Revised Core Set doesn't mention them, as far as I could see. If they are indoor walls it's obvious they can't be jumped.
All clear then, thank you very much to everyone.
Wombattangofoxtrot said:
The "walls" originally were designed to represent weight-bearing pylons for an indoor base, which would mean that you couldn't jump over them because you would be bashing into the ceiling/roof. There's nothing stopping your group from saying that they represent walls that can be jumped over in your own games.
They are used on snow covered exterior tiles though, so don't think thats right, but then there were no jumping infantry then either. I know one thing though, wit hall these jumping troops now and if youallow jumping other than per the rules, it will severly effect a lot of the scenarios.
Yeah, it's clear that the Jump rules in their current form are written with purely game balance in mind, not realism or logic. You can't jump over walls, because the purpose of walls is to direct gameplay, funnel the troops and create strategic obstacles. Buildings don't have such a function, they are just a different battle area, so jumping over them does not break the scenarios. Finally, you can't jump over vehicles because, if you could, the enemy would have no way to block your advance to a sensitive area. It's all about the gameplay, logic be damned.
I'd rather try to keep logic alive, and be willing to declare some building too high to be tacticaly jumped, obstacles to be tall objects that can likewise exceed the jump troops ability to tactically jump, and there to be cavern roofs overhead to preclude jumping of other objects sometimes. Too tall buildings are not official, though I really hope they give a limit of some sort, but they're also not likely to be on my tabletop too often because I don't have building models taller than four stories.
The rules try to answer logical options, but keep falling behind the other options given with new releases. My only real issue with the jump rules is the allowance for infantry to jump friendly, but not enemy, walkers, while being able to jump either when they're in a building because the infantry can jump the building.
Gimp said:
Actually, infantry can't jump any kind of walker, whether friend or foe. Though they don't really need to jump over a friendly walker, as they are allowed to simply walk through the space occupied by it. But I agree, the real issue for me is the whole "want to jump a walker? just tuck it inside a building, then you'll be able to". It's just too nonsensical.
Loophole Master said:
Gimp said:
Actually, infantry can't jump any kind of walker, whether friend or foe. Though they don't really need to jump over a friendly walker, as they are allowed to simply walk through the space occupied by it. But I agree, the real issue for me is the whole "want to jump a walker? just tuck it inside a building, then you'll be able to". It's just too nonsensical.
True based on wording, but effectively they can, as the friendly does not slow the jumping unit at all. Semantics matter, but in this case it's simply a mask.
There are rules that need clarification, but this decision was rather silly.
Gimp said:
Loophole Master said:
Gimp said:
Actually, infantry can't jump any kind of walker, whether friend or foe. Though they don't really need to jump over a friendly walker, as they are allowed to simply walk through the space occupied by it. But I agree, the real issue for me is the whole "want to jump a walker? just tuck it inside a building, then you'll be able to". It's just too nonsensical.
True based on wording, but effectively they can, as the friendly does not slow the jumping unit at all. Semantics matter, but in this case it's simply a mask.
There are rules that need clarification, but this decision was rather silly.
Since it appears that they are trying to show that enemy walkers have a Zone of Control that disallows infantry from jumping over that walker, what do you think of a rule that said that infantry is allowed to jump over a walker, but an unactivated walker would get an immediate +2 Reactive fire check if an enemy infantry unit jumped over it?
The zone of control concept is rather odd, as most vehicles have limited ability to do much controlling of nearby infantry. Some have none, which makes the zone of control idea really odd.
Giving a bonus to Reactive Fire checks is dangerous, because it adds a lot of extra limitations. A Wildfire currently has a 70% chance of executing Reactive Fire with 3 dice. 5 dice would make it 87%. Adding additional dice quickly adds up, running 33, 55, 70, 80, 87%.
If they want vehicles to have such a zone of control, I'd rather they be allowed to make a 'danger close' reactive fire attack even if activated already. Allowed once per turn if enemy infantry jumped over them allowing fire only with pintle mount machine guns. Anti-aircraft weapons could also be allowed such an attack, but it should be limited to light anti-aircraft weapons (20mm) because they could track fast rnough that close. You could allow all anti-aircraft weapons for simplicity, and probably find few people wanting to jump the Sturmkonig. Then again, few would want to jump the Wildfire or Heinrich, either, which also makes sense.
The problem with allowing any such extra for vhicles, however, is that people will then complain that infantry doesn't get the same option.
It could be limited to only anti-aircraft weapons, which would mean pintle machine guns and AA guns, but also the Heavy Flak Grenadiers (if loaded). That would give consistency and make sense against jumping troops.
I can see giving Jump to walkers, so they can jump over tank traps. Why give it to infantry then? So they can jump over other infantry and buildings? Am I missing something special here?
So they can jump over enemy squads, mainly.
Seems like the 2 move is more valuable than Jump at this point. So sad.
Oh, definitely. Move 2 is a much greater ability than Jump. And Jump is of very limited use if the unit doesn't have Move 2 or at least Fast.
I've always viewed it as Move 2 is due to Jump, as only Jump infantry has that much speed. Vehicles gain mobility, while infantry gains speed.
I picture their movement like the soldiers from the Starship Troopers novel, where they speed along the ground, or jump higher into the air, and their jump jets aid in both.
Btw, does anyone ever used the medium walker jump ability ?
I find it pretty useless as it leaves the unit exposed to enemy fire, while it is unable to shoot for the remainder of the round.
Lska said:
Btw, does anyone ever used the medium walker jump ability ?
I find it pretty useless as it leaves the unit exposed to enemy fire, while it is unable to shoot for the remainder of the round.
I have used it, in 2 different ways.
1) Jumping over tank traps. Sometimes my opponent will place a tank trap specifically to try to block walkers, and the best way to get around it is over it. Of course I don't jump over it into the line of enemy fire, but it's not always the situation that enemies are in range.
2) Diagonal moves with infantry unit in the way. If I have an infantry unit beside my walker, I can't move diagonally without jumping. In this case, I can jump and then I still even have the extra action to fire or do another move action.
Also, Mickey is a medium walker which has Jump and also Fast, which opens up other possibilities.
Yeah, 1 is pretty rare, but 2 happens all the time. Specially during the first couple of rounds, when all the units are bunched up, it really helps to be able to move diagonally through your troops, while the axis opponent needs to go around them.
And yeah, Mickey is a whole different thing, with his Fast ability. He can clear an obstacle and still fire, which is absolutely great.
Question! Can a unit with jump ability jump diagonally from a terrain without a dot? this came up just last night on our game nights... Thanks in advance loophole!
jowisu said:
Question! Can a unit with jump ability jump diagonally from a terrain without a dot? this came up just last night on our game nights... Thanks in advance loophole!
If they can jump over that terrain, yes. So for instance, a walker can't go diagonally around a tank trap, but a walker could do it with jump. It is one case where a unit like the Pounder or the Hot Dog can jump and fire in the same turn (since the jump action is still only one distance.)
jowisu said:
"Terrain without a dot" is one of those terms that is just horrible in this game. It brings up all sorts of confusion and contradiction. If you're talking about a terrain square, then a vehicle can't, and a squad doesn't need to.