Excelsior Entertainment Forums
Warzone => Game Questions => Topic started by: chribu on March 27, 2006, 06:26:27 AM
-
If vehicle moves, there is no +3 RC bonus.
What about a skimmer that:
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
does not move, shoots 3 times.
a) Do all 3 rolls have +3 RC or only the first one?
What about:
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, shoots 1 time.
Then, during enemy unit activation, shoots twice.
b) What happens here?
ORCAs:
c) is the -3 RC penalty for instability for the HI HMG to be applied only if the ORCA moved during that activation?
-
ya know...
i dunno. I'll have to ask about A+B.
C. If the Orca does not move there is no penalty. It is a glorified Bunker.
-PFC joe
-
As far as I know in case A your 3rd shot would be at +3 but could not use wait to shoot for 2 more times. Wait actions are used to react to enemy actions, also I have never played were some used wait,wait,shoot generally its shoot,wait,wait. In case B if waiit,wait,shoot is legal you would come off wait with no bonus.
-
Thanks for all your answers PFC Joe, you really are the best! :D
I couldn't do without you!
+1
When you get an answer on A) and B) please let me know.
-
I believe Dragon to be on the right course, but i'm not 100% let me check around as best I can.
-PFC joe
-
well, i'm sure wait, wait, shoot is legal as it's the example on page 92 for the strike skimmer!
-
On page 44 under Wait When a model is on wait, it is considered to be watching and waiting, ready to react to an enemy's activity. So a Model with ambush can reserve 2 wait actions, but the wait actions have to be used in reaction to an enemy action.
-
Wait actions do not require an enemy action. you can pop a wait at any time. You can not ignore tac sense though.
-PFC joe
-
Also, with the strike skimmer, the gunner has "Ambush", hense able to reserve 2 actions. With the Orca's, they do NOT have ambush, thus can only reserve 1 action.
-
You can not ignore tac sense though.
you mean you can't use tac-sense from wait.. ?
-
unless specially mentioned you can't use most SA's from wait.
Especially when shooting, you have to target the closest of the closest.
-PFC joe
-
PFCjoe I checked the FAQ's and the rulebook and all I can find is Page 44 (6.2.10-Wait) and it says a wait can only be used to react to an enemy action.(short version) Otherwise I could have a 10 man grunt squad that's on wait also activate during 1 of my other squads activation result 2 squads firing at the same time without a give orders action. Thats why waits are used during a enemy's action. If I over looked something i 'am sorry but that's always been the way we've used wait actions.
-
that is almost exactly how Wait is supposed to be played out.
It is hardly circumventing G.O.s, given that most LD's hover between 10~13 (50%-65% chance of successfully coming off wait) half the squad would fail to fire and of those its roughly half to less that would hit.
I'm tryin to find the post but Thom said that an action isn't required to come off wait, you just need something to do with the wait.
-PFC joe
-
Thanks for all your answers PFC Joe, you really are the best! :D
I couldn't do without you!
+1
When you get an answer on A) and B) please let me know.
Any update on this, PFC Joe?
Thanks, Chribu
-
The original question referencing the Skimmer is moot because the +3 RC bonus only applies to single crewed vehicles and the Skimmer is a multi-crewed vehicle.
On the notion of wait - I will back Joe on the statement that you do not need to react. This was an older edition ruling. In UWZ, you can use your wait at anytime before the unit activates again (thus loosing the held initiative) as long as you do not interrupt a die roll.
-
The original question referencing the Skimmer is moot because the +3 RC bonus only applies to single crewed vehicles and the Skimmer is a multi-crewed vehicle.
Actually, there is a post from Thom that says otherwise
Let me preface my posting that I appreciate the discourse on this topic, even when the sarcasm bubbles up unnessarily (IMO). As the "Enlightened" person here at EE, I was intrigued by Petias observation about single-crewed vs. multi-crewed vehicles vis-a-vis the bonus for not moving.
That +3 advantage does apply to multi-crewed vehicles when the driver spends his action to simply idle (ie-not move). It was intended to show a progression but that seems to have been misread. I am sorry for that.
On the notion of wait - I will back Joe on the statement that you do not need to react. This was an older edition ruling. In UWZ, you can use your wait at anytime before the unit activates again (thus loosing the held initiative) as long as you do not interrupt a die roll.
Thanks. Although I was hoping for some feedback on questions A) and B)
-
Sorry chribu, I thought I was responding to A & B. I was unaware of this statement from the main man.
-
What I still haven't figured out for A) and B) is when does the +3 bonus apply.
When the driver's corresponding action wasn't used to drive or when the last driver's action wasn't used to drive?
Or as long as the driver hasn't just used his last action to drive?
-
OK, I'm going to take a stab at A & B. First, I've taken some time and refreshed myself with the pertinent rules. The first problem is that the example given on page 92 about the Skimmer waiting, is an illegal maneuver unless this was amended by Thom somewhere on the forums.
When taking a wait action, the model must end it's turn. The wait is the last thing that the model can do. Now with Ambush, the model is allowed to take a second wait action but, the normal rules for going on wait still apply. So, the gunner would not be able to wait, wait, then act. A Free Marine would not be able to wait, wait and then shoot. This is never a problem though because it is a single model so it would just shoot first and then wait.
So, the first question is do we ignore this inconsistency and assume that the Skimmer was designed to be able to pull off the maneuver that was given as an example. I would say yes because it is blatantly given as the example.
So, this brings us back to the original question. So now we need to consider the dynamic nature versus static representation of the game. If the Skimmer is moving than the gunner would not get his +3 bonus. So, we need to figure out what designates that the Skimmer is moving. Reasonably I would surmise that if the driver moves the Skimmer with all three of his actions then the Skimmer would be in motion for the entire duration. So, if the gunner waits then he would not get the +3 bonus. So far pretty straight forward. So, based off of this assesment, I would go further and say that if the driver moves the Skimmer on his third action while the gunner is on wait, then the gunner is attempting to fire while the Skimmer is moving so no bonus.
In summary, at this moment if I was moderating a tourney, I would say A)he gets the bonus and B) no bonus.
I hope that this makes sense and is helpful.
-
so, just to make it clear, you would go for the following?
skimmer that:
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
does not move, shoots 3 times.
All 3 rolls have +3 RC
skimmer that:
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, shoots 1 time.
Then, during enemy unit activation, shoots twice.
No bonus for any of the three rolls
-
Yes, chribu that is how I would call it.
-
If the Orca does not move there is no penalty. It is a glorified Bunker.
what about the shooting only once.
if it is a "bunker" it should allow to shoot more than once if immobile.
(perhaps until it moves the first time in this activation)
-> if not, why should the gunner stay on the orca anyway?? (I ask, because I like orcas with gunners, but they never stay on them.. -> I now only use empty orca figs, but that looks ugly..)
-
unless specially mentioned you can't use most SA's from wait.
Especially when shooting, you have to target the closest of the closest.
-PFC joe
Not, entirely, true. Medic may be used from Wait.
-
OK, I'm going to take a stab at A & B. First, I've taken some time and refreshed myself with the pertinent rules. The first problem is that the example given on page 92 about the Skimmer waiting, is an illegal maneuver unless this was amended by Thom somewhere on the forums.
When taking a wait action, the model must end it's turn. The wait is the last thing that the model can do. Now with Ambush, the model is allowed to take a second wait action but, the normal rules for going on wait still apply. So, the gunner would not be able to wait, wait, then act. A Free Marine would not be able to wait, wait and then shoot. This is never a problem though because it is a single model so it would just shoot first and then wait.
So, the first question is do we ignore this inconsistency and assume that the Skimmer was designed to be able to pull off the maneuver that was given as an example. I would say yes because it is blatantly given as the example.
I believe that is a mistake or misprint, 'cause we have general rules that says a thing, and i.e. that says another one... and it's absolutely illogical case, if it isn't explained why it.
By me, a legal manoeuvre is:
- moves 1, shoots 1 without +3 RC
- moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
- moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
- does not move, shoots 2 times with +3 RC
-
By me, a legal manoeuvre is:
- moves 1, shoots 1 without +3 RC
- moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
- moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
that is possible because ambush.
the turn for the gunner ends then. (expend all actions to go to wait, in this case min 2)
therefore
- does not move, shoots 2 times with +3 RC
need to happen as a come-of-wait (auto-success because ambush)
since that is possible anytime -> no prob.
(the +3 does only apply if the driver/SK ends his turn, but possible before enemy activation
that is merly formal, but if he interupts the drivers drive action, the +3 does not apply, imho).
-
If vehicle moves, there is no +3 RC bonus.
What about a skimmer that:
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
does not move, shoots 3 times.
a) Do all 3 rolls have +3 RC or only the first one?
It is my understanding that when a model uses Wait or Ambush, its turn is ended, hence I believe the example given is not, entirely, correct. Therefore, if the Strike Skimmer gunner wishes to fire three times, its first AC must be fire. If the Strike Skimmer moves during that AC, then there is no bonus. The gunner may, then, place its remaining two AC's on Ambush, and use these after the Skimmer has come to rest, thus receiving the +3 bonus to RC on each AC that is used while the Skimmer does not move.
What about:
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, shoots 1 time.
Then, during enemy unit activation, shoots twice.
b) What happens here?
See above.
ORCAs:
c) is the -3 RC penalty for instability for the HI HMG to be applied only if the ORCA moved during that activation?
I see no mention of where the gunner is not penalized. The book specifically says that the Orca is an unstable weapons platform, and that the gunner receives a -3 at all times and may only fire once while on the Orca.
-
there is the faq answer stating that while not moving there is no penalty.
no mention of the only 1 time shooting, though.. (imho missed out)
-
By me, a legal manoeuvre is:
- moves 1, shoots 1 without +3 RC
- moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
- moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
- does not move, shoots 2 times with +3 RC
I disagree with this completely. Why? Because the actions were reserved while the vehicle is moving. It is a loophole being exploited by a player looking for one. I would say that the shots fired from ambush should not get the +3 RC.
This whole argument came up in 2nd edition with multi-crewed vehicles spending their actions simultaneously or whenever they wanted. It was ruled that crew members must ALL spend their actions simultaneously so that a vehicle like a Strike Skimmer couldn't move 18" and then unload at PB range three times in succession. It was a ridiculous notion to assume that was acceptable and cooler heads prevailed in the discussion. It was deemed that crew weapons and single crew weapons must be fired while the vehicle was moving or the chance to fire for that action was lost.
Giving the Strike Skimmer Ambush brings back the same problem introduced in 2nd edition. Someone could interpret the rules to do just what I described above. It is not what was intended by the rules.
-
so, just to make it clear, you would go for the following?
skimmer that:
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
does not move, shoots 3 times.
All 3 rolls have +3 RC
skimmer that:
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, shoots 1 time.
Then, during enemy unit activation, shoots twice.
No bonus for any of the three rolls
All of these are illegal as no other actions can be taken after a wait or ambush is declared.
-
skimmer that:
moves 1, shoots 1 time.
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
Then, during enemy unit activation, shoots twice.
that should be legal.
also, on the wait-actions +3 (no moving.. may be exploit like, but the gunner shoots really later, not during the moving..)
-
skimmer that:
moves 1, shoots 1 time.
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
Then, during enemy unit activation, shoots twice.
that should be legal.
also, on the wait-actions +3 (no moving.. may be exploit like, but the gunner shoots really later, not during the moving..)
I have no argument that he should be allowed to shoot twice later via the ambush skill... that's fine. But I strongly disagree about the +3 RC. While he may not be moving during the ambush, he reserved actions that WOULD HAVE been used while moving--hence no bonus to the RC. It may seem strange to you, but I think it is a balance issue.
-
ok, that simply needs a ruling then
-> cu in the faq update..
-
skimmer that:
moves 1, shoots 1 time.
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
Then, during enemy unit activation, shoots twice.
that should be legal.
also, on the wait-actions +3 (no moving.. may be exploit like, but the gunner shoots really later, not during the moving..)
I have no argument that he should be allowed to shoot twice later via the ambush skill... that's fine. But I strongly disagree about the +3 RC. While he may not be moving during the ambush, he reserved actions that WOULD HAVE been used while moving--hence no bonus to the RC. It may seem strange to you, but I think it is a balance issue.
I disagree, Wedge. It is akin to saying that a trooper who went on Wait while a target was in cover, but comes off Wait to shoot when the target charges should have to shoot the model while it is in cover. The Ambush AC's were reserved, and should be allowed to be used in their current state - not when they were placed on Ambush.
-
I disagree, Wedge. It is akin to saying that a trooper who went on Wait while a target was in cover, but comes off Wait to shoot when the target charges should have to shoot the model while it is in cover. The Ambush AC's were reserved, and should be allowed to be used in their current state - not when they were placed on Ambush.
I see what you are saying. But, we'll have to take up opposing views in this instance. Let me better explain myself as to why I see it being an imbalance issue and a loophole.
A Strike skimmer is 20" away from two squads on the enemy's left flank. Both those squads have activated already. The skimmer zooms forward 6" and fires from just out of short range on its first action. On the two subsequent actions, the gunner reserves his actions for ambush while the driver moves ahead another 12". The Skimmer is parked a mere two inches away from both squads.
Before the opposing player activates his next unit (because waits and ambush can be taken at any time), the Bauhaus player says oh wait... I use my ambush. He then proceeds to decimate the enemy squads with two rounds of PB HMG fire. This loophole is directly in conflict with the intent of the rules for crew and single crew vehicular weapons. The rules were meant to prevent such a happening by forcing a player with a vehicle to fire AS his vehicle gets closer, and not unload with all his firing actions once he got as close as possible. It is meant to simulate a vehicle tearing across the battlefield, firing as he goes...
While the game mechanic may support the action as legal, I would argue that it was a play-testing oversight and ambush should never have been given to a vehicle crew. It is a balance issue that has been badly broken in this instance.
Be that as it may... there it is. It's ugly head reared in all its glory. The question is what do we do with it. I say limit it so that the +3 modifier at least is gone. It's bad enough that he's still going to shoot that close, why make it even more devastating.
If it comes down to an FAQ team vote--my stand would be such.
-
Firing from wait is essentially snap fire. You wait for the best opportunity to shoot which is different from aiming. From wait you are essentially tkaing the shot at the most opportune time to shoot. That does not allow you to aim -- You only have a general idea about where the enemy will be. This makes it a less than controlled shot and should negate the RC bonuses. If it was meant to be allowed that you could have a RC bonus from wait then why can't you use one of your waits from ambush to aim -- same principle from where I sit.
-
I'll agree with Wedge on one point - Ambush should not be a crew skill. That said, I believe that I would remove Ambush from the gunner, even if it meant that the cost of the Skimmer would drop a few points.
However, I disagree with the fact that a gunner would not wait for an opportune time to fire, instead of spraying the field as he goes. I believe that a gunner should be allowed to hold an AC on Wait, like any other model. As for being able to fire when they see "the whites of their eyes," I consider that a benefit of having spent a support slot and a chucnk of points to have that moving target in my force.
A vehicle has one limitation that is constantly overlooked:
Firing Arc: According to 2nd Ed., the firing arc of a Skimmer (and most other vehicles' main weapons) is 90º - not 180º. This forces vehicles to turn to bring their weapons to bear, and forces tactical manuevering. Further, if a vehicle takes a critical hit to its Steering, well - it gets even more fun.
If it were to come to a FAQ team vote, I think that I would vote for restructuring. If that was not possible, then I would have to vote to leave it. It is, actually, exemplified as being able to do what has beend escribed as an "oversight." I do not think that it is an oversight if it is specifically defined as being legal.
Wedge, your points are no less valid than mine, and I fully respect them. I happen not to agree, is all, bud. :) However, I leave myself open to differing viewpoints, and reserve the right to change my mind if presented witha good argument. You have provided a good one, here - just not quite good enough, yet, in my humble opinion.
I look forward to the discussion.
-
Considering that I was quoted to begin this latest round of discussion, I feel that I should weigh in on it. First off, it's my opinion that the FAQ team is not established to restructure anything. We are here to interpret where there is some confusion.
Second, we need to remember there is a difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. An everyday example would be if you were sitting at a red light in the middle of the night and there is not another car anywhere in sight. If you cross the intersection while the light is still red, the cop hiding behind the bushes waiting for you to go through the intersection can write you a citation by the letter of the law. However, if there is no other traffic on the road then the law is null and void. The law was designed to help multiple vehicles safely traverse an intersection. Thus, by writting a stop light citation when there is no other vehicle in sight and no chance of causing an accident, actually goes against the spirit of the law.
I stated all of this to say that I am sticking with my original assesment of this ruling even after hearing points to the contrary. If the skimmer moves during the round then the gunner would not recieve a bonus regardless of whether he took the shots at the end of the skimmer's activation or from wait. This just goes against the spirit of the game.
-
Considering that I was quoted to begin this latest round of discussion, I feel that I should weigh in on it. First off, it's my opinion that the FAQ team is not established to restructure anything. We are here to interpret where there is some confusion.
Best damn explanation of the FAQ's duties I have ever seen. Karma my brother.
I stated all of this to say that I am sticking with my original assesment of this ruling even after hearing points to the contrary. If the skimmer moves during the round then the gunner would not recieve a bonus regardless of whether he took the shots at the end of the skimmer's activation or from wait. This just goes against the spirit of the game.
Way to take my ramblings and turn them into a coherent explanation. Who da' man -- Stalker da' man ;D
-
I hear ya Glenn, but I would like to point out that I did not say anything about restructuring anything. I only said that "IF" it came to a vote, mine would be to rule that no bonus is allowed.
-
I did not mean to imply that you did Wedge. It was mentioned by McGee. ;)
-
McGee mentioned it because it was mentioned (and seconded, by me) that the gunner should not have Ambush. I think that it is this point that allows the ensuing differences of opinion as to how it should work. If the gunner did not have Ambush, this entire discussion would be moot.
As to the spirit of the law, even Thom, himself, has weighed in on it. The Skimmer is entitled to act as it has been described. It was Thom who pointed the tactic out to me. That said, I still agree with Wedge in that the gunner should not have Ambush. It seems like someone wanted the Skimmer to be just a bit better than other vehicles, IMHO.
-
but if you think about it:
he has a wound less (5) and at 96 P it "only" brings the usual MHMG with RC 8...
itself the vehicle is just fine, incl. the strike ability.. ;) (-> i vote for ambush)
(this will only do good in an initial rush, anyway..
because the MHMG is effective at 6-12´ the vehicle will most likely try to shoot as much as possible
and does not need to use the ambush maneuver anymore..)
what is maybe upsetting is the fact that they are together in an army with vulcans & good, cheap grunts..
cu
p.s. that is why i like the eradicator: move and shoot at RC 11, or shoot at RC 14
he is a little expensive for just 3 A with a MHMG.. but the ok/good RC skill compensates..
-
Dave I meant no offense. I did not mean to single you out. I am simply stating that I don't feel like the FAQ should engage in restructuring. It may start innocently enough with a small change here or there but, that quickly becomes a slippery slope.
It seems like someone wanted the Skimmer to be just a bit better than other vehicles, IMHO.
what is maybe upsetting is the fact that they are together in an army with vulcans & good, cheap grunts..
I agree. It seems like someone wanted everything in Bauhuas to be just a little bit better. ???
-
Just my 2 cents. remembering that both sides are actually going at the sametime if the skimmer moves all 3 actions then no +3 bonus when he comes off wait to shoot as the vehicle is still moving until it activates and uses its first action to not move and shoot. ;D
-
Dave I meant no offense. I did not mean to single you out. I am simply stating that I don't feel like the FAQ should engage in restructuring. It may start innocently enough with a small change here or there but, that quickly becomes a slippery slope.
I agree. It seems like someone wanted everything in Bauhuas to be just a little bit better. ???
No offense was taken, and I hope that none was given by me.
-
@ Dave - No offense, we're all good. I just wanted to make sure of it. You know better safe than...
Just my 2 cents. remembering that both sides are actually going at the sametime if the skimmer moves all 3 actions then no +3 bonus when he comes off wait to shoot as the vehicle is still moving until it activates and uses its first action to not move and shoot. ;D
YES, YES, YES! This is the point that I tried to make in a post many months ago. Thank you Dragon.
-
but this is not consistent..
you assume the saved actions bear some "memory" of the time when they where taken.
now what if the SK only moves 2 and stops for the 3. action (assuming gunner shot 1th and then ambushed)?
-> does the first of the ambush actions does not get the bonus, but the second does?
(was taken during standing)
=> i think, if the action ends, the moving status also ends.
this is a quirk/realism-bends-to-AC-mechanism of the system, but nevertheless the case.
-
Just my 2 cents. remembering that both sides are actually going at the sametime if the skimmer moves all 3 actions then no +3 bonus when he comes off wait to shoot as the vehicle is still moving until it activates and uses its first action to not move and shoot. ;D
I actually have to disagree with that.
If both sides were "acting" at the same time, models that were killed would still get an activation before being removed from the board at the end of the turn.
IMO, if you use ambush after another unit has activated < which is most of the time> You SHOULD get the +3 to shoot.
Ex. A Skimmer moves 3 times to a position behind cover. The commando reserves 2 actions. The next unit activates. The enemy comes around a corner, reveals itself etc, the commando then comes off of wait to shoot twice. IMO he would get the +3 bonus because it was the skimmers intention to STOP behind cover.
I think we have to think this through a bit. If you try to say that the reserved actions are taking place during the movement of the skimmer, then the shot, no matter when/where actually used, would have to come from where the skimmer was when the action was reserved. I dont think that anyone here thinks that is the case.
What Im trying to say is that if the commando shoots during the actual turn of the skimmer <unless the skimmer didnt move, then we have no point>, then no +3. If it is after another unit moves, then they would get the +3.
-
but this is not consistent..
you assume the saved actions bear some "memory" of the time when they where taken.
now what if the SK only moves 2 and stops for the 3. action (assuming gunner shot 1th and then ambushed)?
-> does the first of the ambush actions does not get the bonus, but the second does?
(was taken during standing)
=> i think, if the action ends, the moving status also ends.
this is a quirk/realism-bends-to-AC-mechanism of the system, but nevertheless the case.
Nice example, Nick - I cannot find fault with it.
-
Just my 2 cents. remembering that both sides are actually going at the sametime if the skimmer moves all 3 actions then no +3 bonus when he comes off wait to shoot as the vehicle is still moving until it activates and uses its first action to not move and shoot. ;D
I actually have to disagree with that.
If both sides were "acting" at the same time, models that were killed would still get an activation before being removed from the board at the end of the turn.
IMO, if you use ambush after another unit has activated < which is most of the time> You SHOULD get the +3 to shoot.
Ex. A Skimmer moves 3 times to a position behind cover. The commando reserves 2 actions. The next unit activates. The enemy comes around a corner, reveals itself etc, the commando then comes off of wait to shoot twice. IMO he would get the +3 bonus because it was the skimmers intention to STOP behind cover.
I think we have to think this through a bit. If you try to say that the reserved actions are taking place during the movement of the skimmer, then the shot, no matter when/where actually used, would have to come from where the skimmer was when the action was reserved. I dont think that anyone here thinks that is the case.
What Im trying to say is that if the commando shoots during the actual turn of the skimmer <unless the skimmer didnt move, then we have no point>, then no +3. If it is after another unit moves, then they would get the +3.
Again, Philly raises valid points, not the least of which is the unmentioned "game mechanic." Sometimes, something is the way that it is because it is easiest for the game to be that way - it is, afterall, a game. It is an approximation and simulation of "real world," but, in the end, a game that needs rules and consistency to remain viable and playable.
-
By me, +3 RC depens on the fact that vehicle is stationary, not gunner is stationary.
So going to consider when gunner has taken the ambush action doesn't have sense (while he was taking the ambush action if the vehicle was moving or not we don't care, when he shoots, it is stationary and not in movement!)
-
yes, but the question essentially is, does a vehicle continue to move after it´s activation..
if it would remain in "move-status" there would be no question whether the +3 or not..
since there is no move-status in the game (or rather, the status only applies during actual moving),
we need to assume a stopping after every action (that is similar to GW style flying, landing every turn..)
=> imho, the +3 bonus applies, of course.. (raising it to a shocking +5/6 with the fat guns ;D)
(for a more detailed view of my view upon vehicles & +3 Bonus see here:
http://forum54.oli.us/index.php?topic=157.msg24440#msg24440)
-
yes, but the question essentially is, does a vehicle continue to move after it´s activation..
if it would remain in "move-status" there would be no question whether the +3 or not..
since there is no move-status in the game (or rather, the status only applies during actual moving),
we need to assume a stopping after every action (that is similar to GW style flying, landing every turn..)
=> imho, the +3 bonus applies, of course.. (raising it to a shocking +5/6 with the fat guns ;D)
(for a more detailed view of my why-imho see here:
http://forum54.oli.us/index.php?topic=157.msg24440#msg24440)
Gunner don't move, only pilot can use his action to move. So when pilot actions are ended, vehicle is stationary.
And if it is stationary, when gunner out of wait he has +3 RC.
-
Hence, I have a problem with 6 shots at a modified 13 RC. It's a little powerful for my taste. You're going to hit at least 4 times (average) and kill 3 (with average armor) every time.
We can go round and round about this as much as we like. Until I hear from Thom that this WAS his intention then I would house rule it that it does not get the bonus if it moved at all during the action(s) that is reserved the gunners actions for ambush. With the lessened RC you still looking at 3 hits and 2 kills, so we're only saving one model on average. ::)
-
Hence, I have a problem with 6 shots at a modified 13 RC. It's a little powerful for my taste. You're going to hit at least 4 times (average) and kill 3 (with average armor) every time.
Evidently your taste is quite hard... ;D
I'm talking about the fact that the weapon of vehicle stationary (used by the gunner) better shoots that when such vehicle is in movement... it's a simply logical thought don't you find?
We can go round and round about this as much as we like. Until I hear from Thom that this WAS his intention then I would house rule it that it does not get the bonus if it moved at all during the action(s) that is reserved the gunners actions for ambush. With the lessened RC you still looking at 3 hits and 2 kills, so we're only saving one model on average. ::)
I think that you are looking for a compromise than a true and really reasoning... ::)
-
drnovice.. i think what you are forgetting is that all crew on the vehicle use their actions together. if the driver is moving the vehicle, then, at any point on the path that that vehicle takes, the gunner can shoot as the same "action", thus, the vehicle IS moving while the gunner is shooting, not, the vehicle moves 5", stops, the gunner shoots, the vehilce moves 5", stops, the gunner shoots, etc. The only time you get the "stationary +3" bonus is if the driver does not move the vehicle with his action. Hope this helps.
jeff
-
Rule says:
Multi-Crewed Vehicles: When a Vehicle has more than one model in its Crew, then each model has a sef of actions. In general, they must each use an action before any of them can use another action.
So if "in general" crews must each use an action, in this particular case they mustn't use actions necessarily together, 'cause Ambush or Wait action sends again to after execution to an action which was had temporarily set aside...
According to you if the pilot stay stationary (losing all his actions) and the gunner 1 action shoots and 2 puts waiting, is different from the fact that the pilot moves all three his actions driving and the gunner shoots with the first and with the other he puts waiting?
What does it change? +3 RC doesn't depend on the fact that the pilot doesn't do anything and loses his movement actions, it depends on the fact that the vehicle at that particular moment doesn't move!
-
What does it change? +3 RC doesn't depend on the fact that the pilot doesn't do anything and loses his movement actions, it depends on the fact that the vehicle at that particular moment doesn't move!
Yes it does depend on that fact.
Let's say...
One the first action the driver moves. The gunner must spend his action during the time that the vehicle is moving. Hence, he does not get the +3 RC bonus when he shoots during that action.
On the second action the driver does not move. The gunner gets the +3 RC for the vehicle not moving. He shoots with the bonus to his RC.
On the third action the driver does not move. The gunner gets the +3 RC for the vehicle not moving again. He shoots again with the bonus to his RC.
This is not being argued and is upheld in the rules quite plainly.
What if...
One the first action the driver moves. The gunner must spend his action during the time that the vehicle is moving. Hence, he does not get the +3 RC when he shoots during that action.
On the second action the driver moves. The gunner would NOT get a bonus for the vehicle moving if he fired. He decides to reserve his action with the Ambush skill.
On the third action the driver moves. The gunner again would NOT get a bonus for the vehicle moving if he fired. He decides to reserve his last action with the Ambush skill.
This is also not being argued and is upheld in the rules quite plainly.
Ah...
The crux of the argument is... "Why would the ambush skill allow the gunner to get the +3 if he reserved his actions WHILE the vehicle moved?" If he fired while moving he wouldn't have gotten it right? So why now AFTER moving should he get the bonus?
It's a loophole that exploits the action-based sequence of the game mechanic and goes directly against the intention of the rules. No other vehicle has the ambush skill, so no other vehicle can perform tactic. It should never have been given to the Strike Skimmer in the first place, IMO.
What if in the same action the gunner shoots first and THEN the driver moves? Does the gunner get a +3 to shoot because the vehicle isn't technically moving yet? That would be another loophole interpretation on not intended by the rules.
-
I would like to take this opportunity to say that this appears to be a sensitive and controversial subject, and would remind everyone to continue to display respect and decorum. Let us not go down the path of instigation and closed-mindedness. Remember - all opinions are valid, as is healthy discussion. I would not like this to become a divicive issue.
Wedge, Stalker, PFC Joe, and others are FAQ Team members. Their opinions come from an attitude of wanting to see the game thrive above their own personal desires for how something should work. As such, their respective opinions will not always agree with how a "favorite model ought to be played..."
That said, I want to reiterate a counterpoint. Saying that a vehicle is "still moving" after it has activated does not make sense to me, for the following reasons:
- Single-crewed vehicles are allowed to move and fire in the same AC. If they place their last AC on Wait, that means that the vehicle has not moved in it's last AC, and the driver would get a +3 to its RC.
- Multi-crewed vehicles' drivers expend their AC's moving the vehicle, while crew use their AC's firing weapons. If the driver decides to use his last AC to move, the vehicle comes to rest at the end of the move (game mechanic - you cannot assume that the vehicle is still moving as next turn it may maintain that position on its activation). If the gunner(s) place their last AC on Wait, they are allowed to use it at any time up until the squad (vehicle) activates. In my opinion, they should get the bonus to their RC. It would make no sense to not give them their RC bonus, based on an assumption that the vehicle is still moving. Further, Wait AC's are outside of the normal turn order, and should not be subject to anything that the vehicle may or may not have done. We don't assume a gunner loses his RC bonus if hit by rocket, which would cause a lot of movement!
Special cases exist for everything. An EDD gains all the bonuses of a single-crewed vehicle, yet the argument isn't raised about how powerful it's RC attack becomes when it doesn't move (@MR, RC 16 (x3), DM 13). If it holds it las AC on Wait, it gets its RC bonus. An Orca gunner may only use one AC to shoot during an activation and suffers a -3 RC penalty while firing from the Orca. If the Orca doesn't move, he still suffers the penalty, but also gains +3 RC because the Orca is stationary during that AC - it may have moved in other AC's, but if the gunner fires in the AC the Orca doesn't move, he gets the bonus to offset the penalty.
I think, personally, that more is being made of this issue out of the sense that it seems to be overly powerful for the Skimmer gunner to be able to use two AC's to fire from Wait. I'll concede that I believe that Ambush for a vehicle gunner is powerful, and a bit out of scope. I think that Ambush is a skill better suited to unmounted models that can maintain a sense of stealth and surprise. Nothing is less surprising that a hovercraft with a 20mm Vulcan spewing enough hot lead to make a Mercurian Maculator take a moment to reflect upon how its lead its existence.
However, I trust that the points were figured correctly, and that the vehicle is designed to do certain manuevers. I welcome counterpoint, and am more than willing to explain anything upon which I have not made myself clear.
Thanks for listening, and thanks for keeping it sane, folks.
-
Dave,
You make valid points and as always I respect them. We obviously don't see eye to eye on the subject and that is okay. We've already agreed to disagree. You left me an opening to try to convince you so I am continuing to plug away. :)
What is most interesting is this never comes up in Chronopia. In Chronopia a mounted unit meets different restrictions for wait. When a mounted unit wants to go on wait... the rider and mount must both spend an action for the mounted unit to go on wait. A horse cannot move and then the rider wait. He must spend the action doing something else or his part of that simultaneous action is lost.
I think this very specific rule should have been applied to Warzone vehicles as well... it would have been easier.
Or... Ambush should not have been given to the Strike Skimmer gunner. Damn him! Damn him to heck!
Unfortunately, things like this appear with action based sequences. Instead of going the route of including acceleration and current vehicle speed, and declarations of speed, etc. They went an easier route of not bogging down the system with that kind of crap. As a result we end up with situations like this that force us to argue for four pages and get nowhere. >:(
-
Dave,
You make valid points and as always I respect them. We obviously don't see eye to eye on the subject and that is okay. We've already agreed to disagree. You left me an opening to try to convince you so I am continuing to plug away. :)
What is most interesting is this never comes up in Chronopia. In Chronopia a mounted unit meets different restrictions for wait. When a mounted unit wants to go on wait... the rider and mount must both spend an action for the mounted unit to go on wait. A horse cannot move and then the rider wait. He must spend the action doing something else or his part of that simultaneous action is lost.
I think this very specific rule should have been applied to Warzone vehicles as well... it would have been easier.
Or... Ambush should not have been given to the Strike Skimmer gunner. Damn him! Damn him to heck!
Unfortunately, things like this appear with action based sequences. Instead of going the route of including acceleration and current vehicle speed, and declarations of speed, etc. They went an easier route of not bogging down the system with that kind of crap. As a result we end up with situations like this that force us to argue for four pages and get nowhere. >:(
Mounted units could be single-crewed vehicles, is how I read that. ;)
Further, as this is a UWZ discussion, I would ask that we treat it from that angle and leave Chronopia mechanics to Chronopia. I know that the games are similar, enough, but I think that to use one to help describe another gets us into an area where we'd start having to compare a lot more things (pre-measuring, charge, run, etc.).
-
Mounted units could be single-crewed vehicles, is how I read that. ;)
Further, as this is a UWZ discussion, I would ask that we treat it from that angle and leave Chronopia mechanics to Chronopia. I know that the games are similar, enough, but I think that to use one to help describe another gets us into an area where we'd start having to compare a lot more things (pre-measuring, charge, run, etc.).
I only used the example to point out that it would have been a good idea to rule that all parts of a multi-crew vehicle should all have to spend their actions together to either go on wait or ambush. I wasn't paralleling the games as equal at all. I know there are many differences.
-
What if in the same action the gunner shoots first and THEN the driver moves? Does the gunner get a +3 to shoot because the vehicle isn't technically moving yet? That would be another loophole interpretation on not intended by the rules.
My interpretation of this is, if your intent is to move after shooting, you must state so BEFORE rolling dice. even if the results of the shooting change your mind, either in direction of the move, or to move at all, if you want the option of moving after shooting, you dont get the bonus.
sidebar time!
an interesting thought i just had (and, yes, i had to call the fire department to clear the smoke):
you are allowed to move and shoot in the same action. thus, you can move 1", shoot, and then continue to move. EDD, at medium range, gets +3(x2). If there are targets at 25", 26", and 27", can he move 1", fire 1 of his 3 bullets, move 1" more, fire another bullet, move 1" more, and fire the last? Obviously, if the targets were straight ahead, one would just move straight 3" and lay waste. but, if there is only 24" visibility, and you didnt want targets coming off of wait, or not have to move to shoot when activating, there is a tactical advantage. also, if the targets are behind various cover, and you can only get a line at one at a time, not all 3 at the same instant, it would be advantageous to shoot a bullet, move, shoot the next, move, and shoot the last. ideas? thoughts? am i a looney bird who hasnt gotten enough sleep?
-
sidebar time!
an interesting thought i just had (and, yes, i had to call the fire department to clear the smoke):
you are allowed to move and shoot in the same action. thus, you can move 1", shoot, and then continue to move. EDD, at medium range, gets +3(x2). If there are targets at 25", 26", and 27", can he move 1", fire 1 of his 3 bullets, move 1" more, fire another bullet, move 1" more, and fire the last? Obviously, if the targets were straight ahead, one would just move straight 3" and lay waste. but, if there is only 24" visibility, and you didnt want targets coming off of wait, or not have to move to shoot when activating, there is a tactical advantage. also, if the targets are behind various cover, and you can only get a line at one at a time, not all 3 at the same instant, it would be advantageous to shoot a bullet, move, shoot the next, move, and shoot the last. ideas? thoughts? am i a looney bird who hasnt gotten enough sleep?
Dodger, are you talking about A) using 3 seperate actions moving only 1 inch each time or, are you suggesting B) that the EDD could split his burst effect in the same action at 3 different distances? I don't think option B would be a legal maneuver. Yes you have the option of firing at the point in time of your choosing during the movement but, I would say that you only pick one spot and burst from there.
Speaking about sidebar, Troy, Dave, and any other FAQ members who may be following this thread, do we think that we need to have a side bar discussion and make a ruling? I think the community has had time enough to state their opinions to be considered on this topic.
-
On the topic of sidebar, how many actual lawyers do we have as a part of this community? It seems to me that there are quite a few. Perhaps that's our problem? ;D
-
well... the old problem
two opinions (bonus or not)--
both ways try to argument their sides, but ultimately do not want to accept "defeat"
-> more and more arguments/situation analysises/details are thrown into the frey..
(hence the lawyers-smell)
--> can someone _rule_?? because thats what we need..
@ my view, the pro +3
game mechanics aside, but ballance imho:
i think the vehicles need the +3
thats because hard cover (trenches/sandbags) gives -3
-> you need either CC or elite troops (high RC) to efficiently beat troops in cover
if vehicles stay accurate they can fill this need and therefore support all the grunts
(and the system wants many, anyway!!)
if not they are very weak indeed.. a ~100 P vehicle should kill at least 4 guys / round if in SR.. (and no cover)
-
Very interesting points made on both sides. I think we need to talk.
Maybe the first conference call of the FAQ team? Anyone else have Skype? :)
-
Maybe the first conference call of the FAQ team? Anyone else have Skype? :)
I have Sky as in vodka, and hype as in for upcoming events (cough, Origins, cough, cough) but, I am ignorant as to this Skype of which you speak. Is Skype the process of hyping Sky vodka? :D
-
Maybe the first conference call of the FAQ team? Anyone else have Skype? :)
I have Sky as in vodka, and hype as in for upcoming events (cough, Origins, cough, cough) but, I am ignorant as to this Skype of which you speak. Is Skype the process of hyping Sky vodka? :D
I can d/l Skyp, and have a mic and headphones - is that all I need?
-
Yes that's all you need.
-
I hope that we will have a skilful definitive decision for everybody soon.
However being it any decision is right, it's enough that something definitive makes up its mind.
-
An answer will be forthcoming. We just ask a little patience as we need time to discuss, so as to properly consider all points. Currently the FAQ team is confering to confer.
-
And also to have a final answer on the explicit example for Ambush and the Skimmer, perhaps...
(http://www.hotelmimose.com/tmp/skimmer_example.jpg)
-
The problem with that example, Chribu, is that it breaks the rule on Ambush and Wait. Any AC's placed on Wait or Ambush end a model's turn, therefore, the third Firing AC should not be allowed.
-
Yes I know that... but the example is so explicit...
could it be a special ability implied with ambush?
anyway would non-vehicles gain an advantage from being able to reserve an action and then use the following actions?
-
However as the debate went a few weeks ago -- wait can be taken at any time not just as a reaction to the enemy so the gunner could by that rule go on wait ending the gunners turn and then after the driver finishes the gunner could come off wait . By the rules the gunner would lose the 3rd action but the two actions on wait could then be used at the most opportune time. One of the many reasons I'm more fond of waits having to be in reaction to something. Just stating an opinion with the last sentence -- not looking ot reopen the debate.
-
I cannot argue that, Top. That is, actually, part of my argument.
@Chribu - I do not believe that you can infer a rule from a bad example.
-
Just to let you all know, the FAQ team is working this issue still. We’ve had much debate on the topic and are narrowing down our decision. Please bare with us a little while longer as we come to a logical consensus.
Thanks!
-
If vehicle moves, there is no +3 RC bonus.
What about a skimmer that:
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
does not move, shoots 3 times.
a) Do all 3 rolls have +3 RC or only the first one?
What about:
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, reserves 1 wait action
moves 1, shoots 1 time.
Then, during enemy unit activation, shoots twice.
b) What happens here?
ORCAs:
c) is the -3 RC penalty for instability for the HI HMG to be applied only if the ORCA moved during that activation?
Any modifier which would normally apply to a given situation would, indeed, apply to a Wait Action; e.g., if a model uses a Wait Action to fire at a model which is +2 SZ or more, then the firing model would receive a +1 RC modifier. Conversely, if a model uses a Wait Action to fire upon an enemy model in Minimized Presence, then the firing model would suffer a -2 RC modifier. Do not differentiate between the type of modifiers; consider all of them.