Mike and I are having a rollicking good fight over here, but I’ve bumped into a rules interpretation I’d like to discuss further without clogging up that thread.

Okay…I’ve scripted an Advance, my opponent has scripted an Observe. It is a Versus test, but the specifics of Advance and Observe make the logic of this transaction read kind of funny. Here are the relevant paragraphs.

So I believe it works like this:

The Observer rolls against the Advancer. The Observer’s Ob is the Advancer’s roll: If the Observer beats the Advancer’s roll, the Advance is stopped, period. EDIT: And the Observed unit is now a target for Direct Fire and whatever else requires prior observation.

The Advancer, however, does not roll against the Observer! Instead, the Advancer’s Ob is based on the P value of the position – to move into a P1 position, I need to get 1 success. However, the roll must also beat the Observer’s roll.

My interpretation is that the Observer and the P are not cumulative; they’re two comparisons against one roll. The Advancer has to beat them both sequentially to succeed. Correct or have I misread (again!) something vital?

p.

Aah!

The math finally clicked for me – the relevant phrase is “must win by”, which I was wasn’t associating with the Versus. It really is cumulative. Ouch!

So Advancing against an Observe can be really, really hard, yes?

p.

Right. It’s successes of the Observe plus the value of the position. Advancing into any versus maneuver is difficult. Observe is doubly so, 'cause you get spotted!

-L