PLEASE NOTE NEW RULES NOW REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE A HUNKER TOKEN TO GAIN COVER FROM TERRAIN, I COVER IT IN THIS VIDEO HERE: ruclips.net/video/HrT5S86pKos/видео.html
They made cover this way to make the game easy/simple for all types of terrain and players. I do however believe there should be an element of if two figures are on equal elevation, cover is ignored if there is no blocking terrain. I will play a few game first though before I change to house rules.
On board with the cover rules except the getting cover when on an elevated piece of terrain when there isn't anything actually giving cover. Seems like there must be some sort of way to add an additional clause that would fix the issue. But I'll have to see how it plays. If anything it encourages playing for the elevated pieces of the board. AMG is really taking Kenobi's "I have the high ground" quote to heart.
The cover makes sense for the most part. I like how it increases defense dice instead of reducing attack results. I know the elevated terrain will throw me off for the first handful of games.
I’m quite comfortable with the cover rules coming from MCP. I have been sourcing terrain for appropriate heights to prepare my table for the right levels of elevation. I want a high wall to be a high wall!
Getting cover while on the same building in MCP... that still gets to me, though now I know if you have a weaker character have them outside of range 2 in MCP. It saved my ass more than once before.
With things like the catwalk scenario, if the elevation measuring was changed so same height counts as from base up then it would count as lower terrain not same height it would improve these rules and some other los and cover rules without breaking anything.
I didn’t personally read the cover rule that the catwalk scenario you presented would be passing through terrain. More passing over. But if it’s causing confusion, clarification would be good
The cover rules are pretty on par with MCP? I kinda like it, I think it takes away from the endless rules dickering that you get in a lot of GW games, streamlined/friendly rules for cover/LOS make the games go quicker and eliminate a lot of nerlinger bullshittery
I was completely confused by the cover rules. I really hope to see some more examples before I play my first game to finally get my head around them. 😅 Edit: to clarify, I‘m just not sure how to use these rulings with less clearcut terrain, e.g. molded tables with hills, depressions, bridges - especially natural terrain will probably lead to arguments at the table…
Yeah, that gantry example was a bit confusing. One way to interpret it would be to say that if you are ON a piece of terrain at the same height or higher than the opponent you get cover for it, maybe you hide behind some small stuff that isn't shown on the model or somethng.
In a recent live play example from the Shatterpoint team themselves, they said a few times that models at the same elevation dont have cover from the terrain piece they are standing on so Anakin and Maul would not have cover. Its unfortunate that the rules arent written more tightly.
Question: so the size of the object between attacker and defender doesn’t matter when determining cover? Sorry if you answer this later, I’m only half way through the video at this moment.
Yeah, it written in the rules released online. Expect a FAQ to come out. I think when they were reviewing rules, they must have thought nobody in their right mind would interrupt the rule this way.
I do completely agree with Rich in the statement that they need to rephrase the cover rules so characters standing on top of buildings don’t constantly get a defensive boost
In the Maul vs Anakin scenario, one could argue that even in top down view, the straight line does not go trough the terrain in the true sense of trough, as in "moving in one side and out of the other side of".
I think these cover rules are going to take some time to get used to since they kind of butt up against real life but I ultimately thing that clear rules are a benefit so that there are not issues of interpretation.
Cover seems to make sense mostly, think I can get behind those rules. That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about that last example. I guess it could be flavoured as dodging or something, or use the mind's eye that there's other elements in the terrain but yeah.. weird rule
Cover is a little confusing. Again, once the game is out and a few games are played, I am sure it will all click and not be an issue. Now. The being on terrain at the same level with nothing physically blocking either miniature and getting cover, I don't like that. You hit the nail on the head though. Friendly home games, people will probably ignore this rule but....if you are at a tournament, you will have to be aware of it. All in all, I am still super excited for this game and cannot wait for it to come out.
NGL I got some serious MCP Quinjet PTSD from the cover rules. They still have time so im expecting some examples to come from the source to really show new players what they mean.
One thing I have not seen or heard here is that to gain cover, a unit must hunker. This was new at or shortly after release and is in the PDF version of the rules on the Atomic Mass Games website. Might be worth pinning a comment somewhere so that anyone who comes here can see it.
Thank god MCP is my main game! Transferable ideas put into the cover system for Shatterpoint. Looking forward to hunkering down and getting bonus defence dice!
I think I get the cover rules. I need to do it with models I think to really get it. Wish it was a clean as if it’s obstructed from a minis view, you get an extra dice or mod an attack dice.
If I think about Star Wars settings, things are rarely "clean" or free of clutter. So, if I put in my head that the gantry in your example is littered with small items that aren't represented in the game for the sake of gameplay, the cover rules make sense. Does that mean I like them? I guess it makes elevation SUPER important, which we want so...maybe?
I am only coming from legion, so only one war gaming experience. I am willing to try it out. But, in an interview Will Schick said cover and LOS is the worst part of creating a game. He said no game can do it perfect and I agree.
For a character to gain Cover from a terrain feature, they must meet all of the following requirements: • The character's Unit must have one or more Hunker (3) tokens. • The defending character must be within Range (G) 1 of one or more terrain parts at the same or higher Elevation than the attacking character. • A straight line can be drawn from any portion of the attacking character’s base to any portion of the defending character’s base through any number of those terrain parts. • The attacking Character is using a Ranged (N) attack. If a character meets all the above requirements, they have Cover [1].
Yep, the hunker token thing was an errata that came in after I had done the video. All the rules are the same but you now need the hunker to trigger cover from terrain.
The problem with the gantry example is that it doesn’t extend in a logical way to any other scenario. If the idea, thematically, is that characters aren’t static and are constantly dodging around and hiding behind whatever cover exists in their immediate area (even though there isn’t any physical object on the board) than the same concept should apply to characters on the ground. If you’re going to say there’s random stuff to hide behind on a gantry (that doesn’t exist physically) then why can’t there be non-existent trees at ground level? If you want to argue that the rule is purely abstract that’s fine but what about scenario play where the battles take place indoors? Technically, the ground of the building is terrain as it is something you had to put down on the board but literally no one is going to play that every single character gets a cover bonus (assuming they have a hunker token now) for every single ranger attack in the game, that would be asinine. So you have a rule that 1) is extremely counterintuitive to new players 2) uses terminology/verbiage in a way that a neutral observer with no understanding of the rules would balk at because there’s no other scenario in life where “through” would be used in this way and 3) doesn’t logically apply, either thematically or abstractly, to other situations in the game. These three things combine to form a rule that should probably be changed. I’d love to know how it was received in play testing and how open the designers were to the idea of changing it as something so logically inconsistent seems like it would have received a lot of negative feedback unless the testers were just straight up told it’s not up for discussion.
I dunno, i think the cover rules are fine. I get the confusion about the whole gantry scenario, but other than adding a ton of if clauses to the rules it just makes it simpler to have a blanket rule. It's gonna take some getting used to, even coming from MCP, but it's gonna be fun 😊
This is a great series. I do understand the cover rules, but I think some small tweaks should be considered. That being said, if there aren't any tweaks that AMG feel they need to make, that's also fine
LoS and cover are the 2 main points where I hope they tweak the rules slightly to make the game better. The rules are mostly fine, but the weirdness of LoS and Cover takes away from the experience. The only other part that comes to mind that has weird things is the multi-character units where I would probably prefer that they each had their own health and conditions.
Everything makes sense to me as far as rules as written, i just feel like characters on the same elevation shouldnt automatically have cover from each other. I dont mind abstract rules, but that is just a little too far off in my oppinion.
I think I grasp the rules about cover, but the whole thing about being on the same elevation and still getting cover makes no logical sense to me. I hope AMG comes out with a video or something to clarify.
Cover is pretty confusing in this game, a lot less straight forward and even mind bending in certain ways. But I suppose it will remove some confusion at the end and make games less argumentative and possibly more streamlined in the end. Only playing it really know if it works. MCP and Malifaux have strange rules, but once I nailed it down, I generally like them better than true line of sight
Don't care what the dumb rules say, Anakin/Maul are not in cover, really don't know why they persist in screwing up something so simple. And to make matters worse, they insist that terrain acts like you would expect it too ... er no, it doesn't.
Cover sounds pretty confusing. Hopefully watching some gameplay will clear things up. I might house rule some stuff, but I’ll still do my best to understand the game as it’s supposed to be played.
Second post but I think the same elevation cover such as catwalks really spoils the verticality in the game and makes the battlefields a lot less interesting, it’s a shame as that was top 3 things I wanted most from the game
Everything made sense up until the Anakin and Maul (same elevation example). To me that makes no sense but maybe after playing it with physical miniatures I could get use to it.
They've actually made LOS and cover more complicated than it needs to be. 2D ruleset for what they claim to be a 3D game. They've tried to oversimplify it to the point that it's complicated. I can see players new to table top mini games scratching their head at this one "but Anakin clearly doesn't have cover".. ya but the rules say he does so... just silly in my opinion.
This situation has come up a couple times in MCP on some of the bigger buildings. Coming from MCP it makes sense to me even though I can understand other people's confusion.
Gotta disagree with the gantry example. the lines don't go 'through' the terrain at all. It passes over but if you were to get a piece of fishing line and attach it from one part of the base to the enemy at no point would hat fishing line have to go THROUGH the terrain piece, only ever on top of it. Sure you can say it's meant to be done from a top down angle but we all know the rules as intended here is there is not meant to be a cover bonus.
This ruling has been confirmed by AMG themselves on multiple posts. So the rules as intended are 100% as I have shown. It might not make sense (and I agree that the word ‘through’ was probably the wrong choice), but there is definitely cover from this.
@@RichMidGaming I appreciate the reply mate! That's a real shame it's intended that way. They should use the word "across" instead of "through" but regardless i think my only problem with how this game is played is the way LoS and Cover function. Overall they are fine but there are examples like the gantry and such that make zero logical sense and also go against the intuitive nature of a lot of the other rules. I understand these rules completely but it's just a shame that they have chosen to go a very stiff or rigid way instead of something a little bit more, i guess cinematic? Being able to shoot through a solid wall at a target the unit can't even see purely because its on the same elevation is really silly. Again i get it for the ease of use and removes any arguments but solid completely blocking terrain should be the exception.
Why do Cover Rules have to be so complicated??? It really shouldn't be at all. If Anakin gets cover on a Saber Throw from Maul in your example then that's dumb. It literally makes no sense in any reality why he would get cover.
this is silly. If 2 characters are in an elevated position with nothing between them there should be no cover. It is no different to two characters being on the ground.
I don't like cover in this game as again it's abstracted and does not make logical sense. I think it's there to allow for the dynamic models where making wild looking models would be detrimental during gameplay. Do I agree with it? No. Do I like it? No. Do I understand it? No, I often struggle with it in MCP. All in all though that doesn't stop MCP from being the most fun skirmish game I've played and I'm sure Shatterpoint will be very similar. I guess I just have to let go of logic and embrace whatever this is.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
PLEASE NOTE NEW RULES NOW REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE A HUNKER TOKEN TO GAIN COVER FROM TERRAIN, I COVER IT IN THIS VIDEO HERE: ruclips.net/video/HrT5S86pKos/видео.html
They made cover this way to make the game easy/simple for all types of terrain and players. I do however believe there should be an element of if two figures are on equal elevation, cover is ignored if there is no blocking terrain. I will play a few game first though before I change to house rules.
I'll definitely be watching this again to help with understanding cover. Thanks for putting it together.
On board with the cover rules except the getting cover when on an elevated piece of terrain when there isn't anything actually giving cover. Seems like there must be some sort of way to add an additional clause that would fix the issue. But I'll have to see how it plays. If anything it encourages playing for the elevated pieces of the board. AMG is really taking Kenobi's "I have the high ground" quote to heart.
Coming from MCP the cover rules are very familiar. As with LOS there are no grey areas.
This really helped me understand the cover mechanics. Thanks.
The base to base part as well as the hunker tokens is fine. The anikan and maul example on the gantry is definitely weird tho.
I think all cover rules are complicated but these ones especially so! Ill be rewatching this video often to have them make sense for me
The cover makes sense for the most part. I like how it increases defense dice instead of reducing attack results. I know the elevated terrain will throw me off for the first handful of games.
I’m quite comfortable with the cover rules coming from MCP.
I have been sourcing terrain for appropriate heights to prepare my table for the right levels of elevation. I want a high wall to be a high wall!
Getting cover while on the same building in MCP... that still gets to me, though now I know if you have a weaker character have them outside of range 2 in MCP. It saved my ass more than once before.
With things like the catwalk scenario, if the elevation measuring was changed so same height counts as from base up then it would count as lower terrain not same height it would improve these rules and some other los and cover rules without breaking anything.
The being in cover but having clear true line of sight but getting cover thing is strange, but clear. Cant wait to get a game in :D
I didn’t personally read the cover rule that the catwalk scenario you presented would be passing through terrain. More passing over. But if it’s causing confusion, clarification would be good
The cover rules are pretty on par with MCP? I kinda like it, I think it takes away from the endless rules dickering that you get in a lot of GW games, streamlined/friendly rules for cover/LOS make the games go quicker and eliminate a lot of nerlinger bullshittery
I was completely confused by the cover rules. I really hope to see some more examples before I play my first game to finally get my head around them. 😅
Edit: to clarify, I‘m just not sure how to use these rulings with less clearcut terrain, e.g. molded tables with hills, depressions, bridges - especially natural terrain will probably lead to arguments at the table…
Yeah, that gantry example was a bit confusing. One way to interpret it would be to say that if you are ON a piece of terrain at the same height or higher than the opponent you get cover for it, maybe you hide behind some small stuff that isn't shown on the model or somethng.
In a recent live play example from the Shatterpoint team themselves, they said a few times that models at the same elevation dont have cover from the terrain piece they are standing on so Anakin and Maul would not have cover. Its unfortunate that the rules arent written more tightly.
Will Pagani confined this on a recent Facebook post - it was clear and concise
@@RichMidGaming Yikes. That's a bummer, I always hated that ruling.
The same level cover is definitely going to be interesting. Looking so forward to this games release 😁
Question: so the size of the object between attacker and defender doesn’t matter when determining cover?
Sorry if you answer this later, I’m only half way through the video at this moment.
Cover seems a bit odd as many have said, I’m a little skeptical tbh, but I’m definitely willing to at least try it
Coming from MCP I get the "top down" cover but I still don't think it's right 😅- great video once again Rich!
So now I am wondering if Lord Maul’s card when he throws light saber over rides the cover rule…like Obi Wan modifies hunker….
I'd say the cover system isn't super intuitive, but I think we'll get the hang of it as we play more and more.
Yeah, it written in the rules released online. Expect a FAQ to come out. I think when they were reviewing rules, they must have thought nobody in their right mind would interrupt the rule this way.
I do completely agree with Rich in the statement that they need to rephrase the cover rules so characters standing on top of buildings don’t constantly get a defensive boost
Thank you for quoting me 🙂
The cover rules seem quite straightforward, if a little convuluted.
In the Maul vs Anakin scenario, one could argue that even in top down view, the straight line does not go trough the terrain in the true sense of trough, as in "moving in one side and out of the other side of".
You most definitely could argue that. It’s how I first read the rules, but they have been clarified multiple times by the games creators.
I think even if they do not Errata the cover rules it is fairly simplistic to get to grips with once on terrain.
I think the cover is fine, tho I like the increased player control over cover w hunker tokens.
Cover is a bit weird but like many has said, I think once I get to play it will be easier.
Thank you for the videos!
I think the cover mechanics is a little confusing particularly when elevation is concerned.
I think these cover rules are going to take some time to get used to since they kind of butt up against real life but I ultimately thing that clear rules are a benefit so that there are not issues of interpretation.
We often ignore that particular cover rule when playing MCP in my gaming group, just doesn't make much sense
I like the idea of stacking cover and hunker, it might lead to ranged attacks not being great though
I don’t necessarily agree with the way they handle cover, but I’ll learn and play it that way in case I do any tournaments.
Cover seems to make sense mostly, think I can get behind those rules. That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about that last example. I guess it could be flavoured as dodging or something, or use the mind's eye that there's other elements in the terrain but yeah.. weird rule
Cover is a little confusing. Again, once the game is out and a few games are played, I am sure it will all click and not be an issue. Now. The being on terrain at the same level with nothing physically blocking either miniature and getting cover, I don't like that. You hit the nail on the head though. Friendly home games, people will probably ignore this rule but....if you are at a tournament, you will have to be aware of it. All in all, I am still super excited for this game and cannot wait for it to come out.
Thanks for the video. Like a lot of other people, I’m hoping they update the rulebook with a few more diagrams for the “weird” cases.
NGL I got some serious MCP Quinjet PTSD from the cover rules. They still have time so im expecting some examples to come from the source to really show new players what they mean.
One thing I have not seen or heard here is that to gain cover, a unit must hunker. This was new at or shortly after release and is in the PDF version of the rules on the Atomic Mass Games website. Might be worth pinning a comment somewhere so that anyone who comes here can see it.
100% valid point - comment is now pinned with a link to another video explaining it sir!
I do like the cover rules eventhough they confused me at first. Seems like you can build some serious defenses
Thank god MCP is my main game! Transferable ideas put into the cover system for Shatterpoint. Looking forward to hunkering down and getting bonus defence dice!
I think I get the cover rules. I need to do it with models I think to really get it. Wish it was a clean as if it’s obstructed from a minis view, you get an extra dice or mod an attack dice.
If I think about Star Wars settings, things are rarely "clean" or free of clutter. So, if I put in my head that the gantry in your example is littered with small items that aren't represented in the game for the sake of gameplay, the cover rules make sense. Does that mean I like them? I guess it makes elevation SUPER important, which we want so...maybe?
I am only coming from legion, so only one war gaming experience. I am willing to try it out. But, in an interview Will Schick said cover and LOS is the worst part of creating a game. He said no game can do it perfect and I agree.
For a character to gain Cover from a terrain feature, they must
meet all of the following requirements:
• The character's Unit must have one or more
Hunker (3) tokens.
• The defending character must be within Range (G) 1 of one
or more terrain parts at the same or higher Elevation than the
attacking character.
• A straight line can be drawn from any portion of the attacking
character’s base to any portion of the defending character’s
base through any number of those terrain parts.
• The attacking Character is using a Ranged (N) attack.
If a character meets all the above requirements, they have
Cover [1].
Yep, the hunker token thing was an errata that came in after I had done the video. All the rules are the same but you now need the hunker to trigger cover from terrain.
The problem with the gantry example is that it doesn’t extend in a logical way to any other scenario.
If the idea, thematically, is that characters aren’t static and are constantly dodging around and hiding behind whatever cover exists in their immediate area (even though there isn’t any physical object on the board) than the same concept should apply to characters on the ground. If you’re going to say there’s random stuff to hide behind on a gantry (that doesn’t exist physically) then why can’t there be non-existent trees at ground level?
If you want to argue that the rule is purely abstract that’s fine but what about scenario play where the battles take place indoors? Technically, the ground of the building is terrain as it is something you had to put down on the board but literally no one is going to play that every single character gets a cover bonus (assuming they have a hunker token now) for every single ranger attack in the game, that would be asinine.
So you have a rule that 1) is extremely counterintuitive to new players 2) uses terminology/verbiage in a way that a neutral observer with no understanding of the rules would balk at because there’s no other scenario in life where “through” would be used in this way and 3) doesn’t logically apply, either thematically or abstractly, to other situations in the game.
These three things combine to form a rule that should probably be changed. I’d love to know how it was received in play testing and how open the designers were to the idea of changing it as something so logically inconsistent seems like it would have received a lot of negative feedback unless the testers were just straight up told it’s not up for discussion.
Great video
I dunno, i think the cover rules are fine. I get the confusion about the whole gantry scenario, but other than adding a ton of if clauses to the rules it just makes it simpler to have a blanket rule. It's gonna take some getting used to, even coming from MCP, but it's gonna be fun 😊
Cover rules are fine. So long as they are clear to both players it doesn’t provide any unfair advantage.
This is a great series. I do understand the cover rules, but I think some small tweaks should be considered. That being said, if there aren't any tweaks that AMG feel they need to make, that's also fine
LoS and cover are the 2 main points where I hope they tweak the rules slightly to make the game better. The rules are mostly fine, but the weirdness of LoS and Cover takes away from the experience.
The only other part that comes to mind that has weird things is the multi-character units where I would probably prefer that they each had their own health and conditions.
Everything makes sense to me as far as rules as written, i just feel like characters on the same elevation shouldnt automatically have cover from each other. I dont mind abstract rules, but that is just a little too far off in my oppinion.
That catwalk scenario is absolutely absurd. That should be clarified in the final rules.
The rule is wierd but is very simple, what clarification do you need?
@anthony harris They should clarify that two models at the same elevation don't get cover because of that. It's downright stupid.
Like it but getting cover for both being on the same terrain is odd. Just need a rule to clear that up
I think I grasp the rules about cover, but the whole thing about being on the same elevation and still getting cover makes no logical sense to me. I hope AMG comes out with a video or something to clarify.
Cover is pretty confusing in this game, a lot less straight forward and even mind bending in certain ways. But I suppose it will remove some confusion at the end and make games less argumentative and possibly more streamlined in the end. Only playing it really know if it works. MCP and Malifaux have strange rules, but once I nailed it down, I generally like them better than true line of sight
Do note that for a unit to get cover from terrain they need at least 1 hunker token!
Yep - this video was made before the changes came into play.
Don't care what the dumb rules say, Anakin/Maul are not in cover, really don't know why they persist in screwing up something so simple. And to make matters worse, they insist that terrain acts like you would expect it too ... er no, it doesn't.
You would think terrain under your feet counts as a lower elevation lol, what a weird choice
Cover sounds pretty confusing. Hopefully watching some gameplay will clear things up. I might house rule some stuff, but I’ll still do my best to understand the game as it’s supposed to be played.
Second post but I think the same elevation cover such as catwalks really spoils the verticality in the game and makes the battlefields a lot less interesting, it’s a shame as that was top 3 things I wanted most from the game
Everything made sense up until the Anakin and Maul (same elevation example). To me that makes no sense but maybe after playing it with physical miniatures I could get use to it.
I agree it is a weird one - it’s the exact same (or pretty much so) in MCP, so it wasn’t a surprise!
The cover rules are weird. Definitely gonna have to play a bit to get used to them.
Thoughts on cover: that’s annoying that it doesn’t make logical sense.
I will not be giving cover if two characters are standing on the same platform. Other than that, the rules make sense 👍
completely get it for casual games
They've actually made LOS and cover more complicated than it needs to be. 2D ruleset for what they claim to be a 3D game. They've tried to oversimplify it to the point that it's complicated. I can see players new to table top mini games scratching their head at this one "but Anakin clearly doesn't have cover".. ya but the rules say he does so... just silly in my opinion.
This situation has come up a couple times in MCP on some of the bigger buildings. Coming from MCP it makes sense to me even though I can understand other people's confusion.
Gotta disagree with the gantry example. the lines don't go 'through' the terrain at all. It passes over but if you were to get a piece of fishing line and attach it from one part of the base to the enemy at no point would hat fishing line have to go THROUGH the terrain piece, only ever on top of it. Sure you can say it's meant to be done from a top down angle but we all know the rules as intended here is there is not meant to be a cover bonus.
This ruling has been confirmed by AMG themselves on multiple posts. So the rules as intended are 100% as I have shown.
It might not make sense (and I agree that the word ‘through’ was probably the wrong choice), but there is definitely cover from this.
@@RichMidGaming I appreciate the reply mate! That's a real shame it's intended that way. They should use the word "across" instead of "through" but regardless i think my only problem with how this game is played is the way LoS and Cover function. Overall they are fine but there are examples like the gantry and such that make zero logical sense and also go against the intuitive nature of a lot of the other rules. I understand these rules completely but it's just a shame that they have chosen to go a very stiff or rigid way instead of something a little bit more, i guess cinematic? Being able to shoot through a solid wall at a target the unit can't even see purely because its on the same elevation is really silly. Again i get it for the ease of use and removes any arguments but solid completely blocking terrain should be the exception.
Why do Cover Rules have to be so complicated??? It really shouldn't be at all. If Anakin gets cover on a Saber Throw from Maul in your example then that's dumb. It literally makes no sense in any reality why he would get cover.
They're misusing the word "through" here. Absolutely going to ignore this at home games!
Same plane cover is incredibly unintuitive, I get that the high ground is a meme here but providing perma cover needs to be walked back imo
Love the cover rules. Less of a fan of the los rules unfortunately.
this is silly. If 2 characters are in an elevated position with nothing between them there should be no cover. It is no different to two characters being on the ground.
Ooo no, I don’t like the idea of getting cover from being on a walkway at the same level as my opponent. Eww.
I'm not a fan of the rules.
I don't like cover in this game as again it's abstracted and does not make logical sense. I think it's there to allow for the dynamic models where making wild looking models would be detrimental during gameplay. Do I agree with it? No. Do I like it? No. Do I understand it? No, I often struggle with it in MCP. All in all though that doesn't stop MCP from being the most fun skirmish game I've played and I'm sure Shatterpoint will be very similar. I guess I just have to let go of logic and embrace whatever this is.