OK. A little odd, but OK.
Won’t this result in things like units backing away from their objective just so they get the points of a choice position even if that position is behind them?
But taking a position is purely abstract, correct?
I had it in my mind as I read the rules that the map was this really important thing (I don’t absorb rules well from reading, so I might be forgetting a lot here). But in play, I found the map to be really superfluous. It’s main function was to show whether a position was in front of another one or not. But beyond that, we never referenced it for the fight.
The situation started with an argument that escalated (it never got to Duel of Wits, we couldn’t decide on stakes) between two commanders, each surrounded by a large contingent of their soldiers. It wasn’t laid out where one unit was advancing on another. In fact, my objective (his was to deny me the objective) was right next to where we started at, but the choice positions were further away from the objective. This resulted in him starting at a position at the opposite side of the map from the ships he was protecting.
The way I remember the rules last night, it didn’t matter where the units were (unless they were getting extra points for their position), as long as they were in contact with one another. Granted, we played the rules in the most mechanical way, with little roleplaying, as we were trying to figure out the rules. It seemed that last night, where everyone was at had less (almost no) impact than a traditional RPG, where things like lines of sight and close proximity are important.
I also have a question about cover. I marked positions with cover. But when Take Cover actions were made, the successes were added as an Obstacle bonus to any shot opportunities, even if the unit behind cover was in No Man’s Land. Does marking cover on the map mean anything?