Stealth

This is for topics that are out of date.
User avatar
folifurieuz
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:43 am

Re: Stealth

Post by folifurieuz » Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:49 am

I have been stalking these forums far too long not to have posted something...

First off, I really like the idea of an ambush rule, or some kind of undetectable overwatch. I don't see why - if the multiple bases system is employed - you couldn't place an overwatch marker on each of the bases, or perhaps stealth units get a 360 overwatch but has a limited range or some such. Alternatively, stealthed units could be in a sort of permanent overwatch. If overwatch is interupting the action of an enemy, stealthed units seem ideally suited for that function.

Anyhow...

It is true that superficially the multiple bases does seem like a better system for representing mirror images than stealth. Why in this case it is stealth is that, at least from my understanding, an opponent can't direct fire at a base whereas they could at a hologram, whether or not the decoy in question was detected as a decoy.

It seems to me that the multiple bases can funtion in one of two ways. The first is basically as "paranoia markers" of sorts. These would be the locations where the opponent fears the stealthed unit to be. The mechanic might even allow for the opponent to move them in accordance with their predictions of the models location; something similar to the ghosts in Frozen Synapse. I have not really fleshed out this idea in my head and frankly I don't care much for it, so tear it apart as you please...

The second way of understanding them (at least in my mind) would be to have so many bases or markers that it would become detrimental for the opponent to actually try to figure out which one was the real one. It would not be a viable option considering the number of squads and solos that there are: there would simply be too many places to look. This would basically force the opponent not to act in response to the markers and represents that the model could in fact be anywhere: not in one of five places. I of course have taken into account the logistical ramifications of having more empty bases than actual models on the board (yeah, that many) and I realise this is quite ridiculous, but I'm sure there could be a way of making it disadvantageous for the enemy to chase down each token or to generally act with the tokens in mind. That is not to say they would not act with the knowledge of a stealthed assassin (or whatever) on the table, I just feel that the detection of an invisible unit should be frankly quite accidental - an error on the part of the stealthed unit rather than a multiple choice exam. Perhaps five bases is actually enough for this sort of futility, but if multiple bases are being used to make detection an accident rather than a strategy, then I feel there should be more markers.

That said, not all stealthed units are invisible. Degrees of stealth were mentioned with the idea that this might limit the number of bases. I like the idea of multiple bases (or even multiple areas/templates) where a stealthed unit might be, and I like the idea that it should be easier to detect Joe holding a large pine branch than Predator. If multiple bases are used, I feel the number of bases should not change (whatever that number may be) but rather that a stealth check would be harder to pass.

Alternatives that I can think of would be a Starcraftesque system where cloaked units just cannot be attacked unless detected by a detecting unit: marines will just let themselves be slaughtered by dark templars until good ol' science vessel or raven shows up. This of course does not hide the unit's location - which is sort of the point of this entire discussion... - but then again neither is it truly hidden in Starcraft: one can spot the distortion created by the unit, they just can't do anything about it until it is detected.

So, in closing: I feel that there should be either more than five bases/markers/tokens (8-10?) or about five smallish radial plates with stealthiness being solely a function of the opposed stealth/detection check rather than the number of bases. I understand that this makes for perhaps too tedious a system and might make it too random and therefore less tactical, but hey I've never played a table top wargame so who am I to know?
Everybody is people.

User avatar
miniwargaming
Site Admin
Posts: 2837
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:38 pm

Re: Stealth

Post by miniwargaming » Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:14 am

After reading all of the comments, here is what I like:

1. Multiple regular sized base markers. I realize this doesn't 100% accurately depict stealth, but it's more to represent that your opponent doesn't know where you are, and hey, it would be fun!

2. Only a few solo models would ever have stealth, so there shouldn't end up being a lot of stealth on the board (I'm picturing 0-3 models per side at most, although it would be fun to be able to make an entire stealth army).

3. I like the idea of having a "unit coherency" for the bases, based off of the stealth level.

4. Overwatch will give away which is real, but will not reveal the model. If all the bases could go on overwatch it would be too time consuming, and would require more templates.

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Stealth

Post by Wiouds » Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:53 am

Without a ambush system stealth would be worthless and then should not be included in the game.

I do not like the templates in overwatch to start with and see it as meaningless waste of time.

User avatar
miniwargaming
Site Admin
Posts: 2837
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:38 pm

Re: Stealth

Post by miniwargaming » Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:19 pm

Wiouds wrote:I do not like the templates in overwatch to start with and see it as meaningless waste of time.
Why? You seem to be harshly against this but I see no problem with it.

Putting somebody on 360 degree overwatch seems a little much, especially for snipers.

User avatar
Korsarro-Khan
Lives, breathes, and eats MiniWarGaming
Posts: 1508
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:17 pm
Location: Minehead or Plymouth, UK

Re: Stealth

Post by Korsarro-Khan » Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:35 pm

miniwargaming wrote:
Wiouds wrote:I do not like the templates in overwatch to start with and see it as meaningless waste of time.
Why? You seem to be harshly against this but I see no problem with it.

Putting somebody on 360 degree overwatch seems a little much, especially for snipers.
if a unit of multiple models was placed on overwatch, i think 360 degree would be ok. However only models with a line of sight would be able to shoot, e.g. when placed in overwatch the player would have to postion the models (i.e. all facing outwards for 360 degree overwatch, all facing same way would give overwatch in one direction etc)

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Stealth

Post by Wiouds » Mon Aug 29, 2011 4:19 pm

miniwargaming wrote:
Wiouds wrote:I do not like the templates in overwatch to start with and see it as meaningless waste of time.
Why? You seem to be harshly against this but I see no problem with it.

Putting somebody on 360 degree overwatch seems a little much, especially for snipers.
If I am in a fox hole and told the enemy will come and I should shoot at them when they do then I am not going to be looking down a 90 degree sight. I would try to look as much to all the angles that I can.

I am thinking of stealth units having something like overwatch. It is called Ambush. Ambush does not use the templates and can give other bonus to the unit.

DacoTrilar
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Stealth

Post by DacoTrilar » Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:22 pm

Wiouds wrote:
miniwargaming wrote:
Wiouds wrote:I do not like the templates in overwatch to start with and see it as meaningless waste of time.
Why? You seem to be harshly against this but I see no problem with it.

Putting somebody on 360 degree overwatch seems a little much, especially for snipers.
If I am in a fox hole and told the enemy will come and I should shoot at them when they do then I am not going to be looking down a 90 degree sight. I would try to look as much to all the angles that I can.

I am thinking of stealth units having something like overwatch. It is called Ambush. Ambush does not use the templates and can give other bonus to the unit.
The thing is, if you are looking all over the place then you won't get the jump on the enemy when they do come. If they show up to your left, you'll have to turn toward them and then fire. By that time you're basically using your regular activation to shot. The idea behind overwatch is that you're watch a hallway or alley or doorway. As soon as an enemy enters the killzone you shot: you're weapon is nicely placed and you've already lined up your shot. You can only do that in roughly a 90 degree arc, since anymore then that and you're going to spend more time aiming then it'll take for them to move from cover to cover.

User avatar
Cow
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:09 am
Location: Campbell River, BC

Re: Stealth

Post by Cow » Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:00 pm

Agreed, that way enemy units can still sneak up and freely attack an Overwatcher. Thus adding tactics to the game!
My wine coaster is a blast template.

My Tank is Fight!

My other shirt has a Psychic Hood

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Stealth

Post by Wiouds » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:46 am

DacoTrilar wrote: The thing is, if you are looking all over the place then you won't get the jump on the enemy when they do come. If they show up to your left, you'll have to turn toward them and then fire. By that time you're basically using your regular activation to shot. The idea behind overwatch is that you're watch a hallway or alley or doorway. As soon as an enemy enters the killzone you shot: you're weapon is nicely placed and you've already lined up your shot. You can only do that in roughly a 90 degree arc, since anymore then that and you're going to spend more time aiming then it'll take for them to move from cover to cover.
When you put it like that, overwatch is just worthless. Why waste a movement just to wait only focus on a small area that anyone can out maneuver them without any tactical thoughts.

User avatar
spehktre
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:51 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Stealth

Post by spehktre » Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:06 am

saltinerunner45 wrote:simple idea, but would every cloaked individual have a number of stealth tokens/models they put down?
if it isnt, maybe we could just say you get 1/2 of your stealth level in tokens/models?
low: 2 markers
mid: 3 markers
high: 4 markers
This is a very solid idea.
Don't make me come down there!

User avatar
saltinerunner45
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: That's What She Said

Re: Stealth

Post by saltinerunner45 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:35 am

spehktre wrote:This is a very solid idea.
coming from you, this means a lot, thank you good sir
Wiouds wrote:When you put it like that, overwatch is just worthless. Why waste a movement just to wait only focus on a small area that anyone can out maneuver them without any tactical thoughts.
because it would take at least one action to move out of their range to the side, and than at least one more to get into CC range. the tactical challenge on your part come from correctly placing your models and their view. you would want to anticipate where your enemy was going and either cut them off, or force casualties/suppression upon them, messing up their tactics.
if you play chess, its like protecting your knight or castle. your enemy WANTS to take it, but it may not be worth the price and needs to find something else instead.
saltine runner thanks you for reading this post, and is sorry for his ramblings.
"In the grim darkness of the future, there is only static grass." -Smurfyk
2000pts Tyranid

User avatar
spehktre
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:51 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Stealth

Post by spehktre » Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:01 am

miniwargaming wrote:After reading all of the comments, here is what I like:

1. Multiple regular sized base markers. I realize this doesn't 100% accurately depict stealth, but it's more to represent that your opponent doesn't know where you are, and hey, it would be fun!

2. Only a few solo models would ever have stealth, so there shouldn't end up being a lot of stealth on the board (I'm picturing 0-3 models per side at most, although it would be fun to be able to make an entire stealth army).

3. I like the idea of having a "unit coherency" for the bases, based off of the stealth level.

4. Overwatch will give away which is real, but will not reveal the model. If all the bases could go on overwatch it would be too time consuming, and would require more templates.
I'm in favour of the additional bases for stealth idea. I think it a really solid mechanic that genuinely reflects the thematics and benefits of stealth. It's not perfect, but there is no mechanic I've never seen a better representation that this in a game.

I don't understand why you would want the stealth bases in any kind of coherency. For the stealth to work properly, you need to be able to move the bases all over the board, well away form each other. Requiring them to retain a level of coherency completely defeats the purpose of not being seen. With coherency, I'll still know that your ninja is "about there", so I'll have my ninja killing troops sit nearby on overwatch.

Your overwatch/reveal point isn't necessarily the case. It's largely dependant upon the overwatch system. If instead of overwatch, you just create a reactionary system that costs CP (like point 12 here: http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/view ... 22&t=64603 or here: http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/view ... 22&t=64836 ), the mandatory reveal is not necessary until the hidden unit actually takes an action.
Don't make me come down there!

User avatar
griffinthemad
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:06 pm
Location: The Dirty Jerz
Contact:

Re: Stealth

Post by griffinthemad » Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:35 am

saltinerunner45 wrote:simple idea, but would every cloaked individual have a number of stealth tokens/models they put down?
if it isnt, maybe we could just say you get 1/2 of your stealth level in tokens/models?
low: 2 markers
mid: 3 markers
high: 4 markers
I had the same idea, I was hoping to post :) But this makes sense and is easy to remember.
FORUM GAMES
Magnus the Red Victorious Primarch in Final Battle of the Primarchs
The Tyranid Hive Tyrant Victorious in The Supreme Battle of Heroes
Cypher The Fallen Angel Victorious in Battle to be the Herald of Chaos!

User avatar
spehktre
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:51 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Stealth

Post by spehktre » Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:44 am

sonofkitrinos wrote:TBH i dont like the decoy bases for a stealthed model. it makes no sense when tracking stealth. why would there be various bases to represent one miniature?he is not throwing his voice, or having other versions of himself walking around. machanically it sounds like it would be better suited for a unit with some form of holographic mirror imaging, but not a unit that is gone into stealth.

Perhaps the mechanic should be a radial plate, size depending on the tech level, to represent that there is a unit that is stealthed in that location. any enemy wishing to shoot/enter that area must make the required tests to see if it hits anythings. high the level smaller the radial.

Or, simply, the model is on board and in play, but receives major buffs to his defence stats, with the stealth tests but its movement is lowerd X% to indicate trying to be stealthy, that way you know where the model is and stealth itself is tracked as opposed to mirrored images. You can make stipulations in the rules that the opposing player is not aloud to make moves/actions against the stealthed unit until it is out of stealth - just to ensure the solo doesn't get singled out.

I get the idea behind the multiple bases, but again, it sounds more like mirror image than a model entering stealth.
The multiple bases isn't a perfect representation of stealth, but it is the best I've ever seen in a TT game. There aren't any better solutions. The point of stealth, is surprise, which is accomplished by your opponent not having any idea where you are. In a less than perfect sense, that's precisely what this mechanic accomplishes.

The Radial plate solution you mentioned, contradicts the purpose of stealth. The enemy still knows where he is and can send troops there to combat it and follow the "stealth zone" around until it is revealed. Not really stealthy.

The buffs idea, is even less appropriate to a stealth mechanic. You say that many bases represents mirror images more than stealth, the same argument can be applied here, but the point is even more evident. Bonuses to defence and the like are more like shields and equipment than stealth.

Try to look at the many-bases mechanic form a perspective of "what it does" as opposed to "what it doesn't do". If you can think of a better representation of a similar simplicity, that would be awesome!
Don't make me come down there!

CptYellow
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:29 pm

Re: Stealth

Post by CptYellow » Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:31 am

Sphektre is right guys, the multiple bases should not have coherency at all. It would completely negate the purpose of being in stealth. To further Spehktre's point, what if I had a pie plate attack, and all those stealth bases had to maintain coherency? Well, I don't know what base is the actual model BUT I do know that they are all right there, and lets see how many I can fit under this big 'ol pie plate.

Also, I would have a much better idea as to what my opponent was doing with their stealth mini if it had to use coherency... It'd be like this:

Hmm, he has a stealth unit... all those bases are coming up on my left flank.... :shock: uh oh, my Commander is near the left flank and I don't have much support for him there!... better reform my lines and find a pie plate. Phew, problem solved... bet he's sorry he spent all those points on that fancy stealth system 8)

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest