WAIT and vehicle +3 bonus

[Wedge]

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.

[Dr. Nick]

ok, that simply needs a ruling then

-> cu in the faq update..

[dmcgee1]

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.

[Wedge]

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.

[Topkick]

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.

[dmcgee1]

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 90š - not 180š.  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.

[Stalker]

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.

[Topkick]

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 

[Wedge]

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.

[Stalker]

I did not mean to imply that you did Wedge.  It was mentioned by McGee. 

[dmcgee1]

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.

[Dr. Nick]

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 6-12ī 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..

[Stalker]

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.   

[Dragon62]

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.

[dmcgee1]

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.