WAIT and vehicle +3 bonus

[dmcgee1]

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.).

[Wedge]

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.

[jjdodger]

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?

[Stalker]

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.

[Stalker]

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? 

[Dr. Nick]

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)

[Coil]

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?

[Stalker]

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?

[dmcgee1]

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?

I can d/l Skyp, and have a mic and headphones - is that all I need?

[Coil]

Yes that's all you need.

[drnovice]

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.

[Stalker]

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.

[chribu]

And also to have a final answer on the explicit example for Ambush and the Skimmer, perhaps...

[dmcgee1]

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.

[chribu]

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?