[Borkbork]

thanks, worded like that it starts to make (a tiny bit) more sense.

[Borkbork]

Ok, thank you!

We played it correctly. However afterwards i thought it was a way (waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay) too heavy penalty, and that made me doubt wether we played it correctly.

With small arms fire you have to directly hit a person, so there i totally understand the -2 to hit. But even with direct fire from HE you are not aiming for a person, but for a spot on the ground. So it felt logical (at least to me) that going down against HE would limit the amount of damage but not the chance to hit the spot you were aiming for.

It is (to me) especially weird if troops are hiding behind a stone wall (not a building) wich makes them nigh impossible to hit (-2 cover, -2 down, -1 long range), while if it were the exact same wall with a roof on it (building) the story would be totally different.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 3 months ago by Borkbork.

[Author]

Posts