Stubbdog Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Just wondering how much people have used these so far in their playtesting. Part of this thread is just to kinda talk and get my thoughts together. I find that as I write messages to tell or ask you guys stuff, sometimes my own opinion kinda changes or adepts or whatnot as it makes me think more about it separated away from the original situation it happened. I have done a few games and still getting the two kinda mixed up with each other sometimes. But, think I finally got them down this past weekend. Found three discussion points on Scan for Fire: 1.) Gets a little confusing when you take the situation of the fact that the scan gives the result of doubling your listed range, unless doubling your range gives you a range of more than 60 inches. Don't know, maybe just takes playing with it a few more times before I get the hang of it. But, could be explained a little better in the rules for when you take a Specter with a 42 inch normal, double it (84) and then add 6 for IDF for a 90 inch range, but your scanner only went 60 so you still get the -2 range penalty for anything between 61-90. I understand that playing on tables that size are not gonna happen all the time, but I am not talking table sizes here, I am talking about the scan itself. 2.) Firing IDF at a point verses at a model after having done a scan. Situation. I scan 3 enemies and find them to be within my 60 inch perimeter of the scan. They also happen to be travelling in a bunch and are all within 2 inches of a central point to each other. But, I was told that to get the benefit of the Scan for Fire, I had to target one of the models, and not the central point between them. I just wanted to bring this up for discussion to see what others thoughts were. I would imagine that just cause I scanned an enemy target to be at one spot doesnt mean that I have to aim my shot right at that spot, but rather beside him for maximum potential damage against multiple targets as long as the target point was also within the perimeter of the scan, or said another way, I dont see how aiming at an enemy model gets to negate the range penalty, but aiming for the spot right beside him doesn't. 1.) Personally, I think it might be better for the scan for fire to be constricted to indirect fire only. I played a test game this past weekend, against 2 other players on a 4x8 table (1 CAV platoon each). Obviously we had a slightly unbalanced start with one person forced to start in the middle in one edge, and the other two players in the corners of the opposite edges (think a big triangle). Due to the way initiative and just general play that happened, the other two players basically got in a stand and deliver type of shooting match with each other. So, Idecided to test out the scanning and other long range type of possibilities. I noticed that I could just sit back, scan and fire away without ever really moving. Granted with IDF you only get the single attack (except a few exception CAVs) verses the standard 2 direct fire attacks. But I could sit behind a piece of terrain and plunk away. It worked quite nicely (except for the issues noted above). Now for the discussion aspects that lead to my thinking. I guess I had initially associated the scan to fire with indirect weapons, and it wasnt til Mad Pat told me several turns into our playing that it could also be used with direct fire that I tried it. Obviously it was very affective, especially since my two opponents were still too wrapped up in each other to come over at me. But, it also brought up the side discussion that had they decided to stop attacking each other and come at me, of what the outcomes might have been. a.) I would have have the option of moving and firing with the -2 until they were inside my 1st range. b.) I could sit still, fire with salvo for 3 shots at -2 until they were inside my 1st range c.) I could sit still, fire at -2 then go into stealth mode d.) I could scan for fire, fire with no penalties Given those choices, until the enemy is weakened, the first 2 options weren't as appealing as the second 2, and option c still gave me penalties to my attack so option d was the option of choice. Of course, my opponent would have the same options coming back at me. And it could be argued that he/she might have run gone with option a, doing a move and fire or a move and Run and Gun to try to get that much closer to where he could open up other options. But, the discussed opinion was that since they were sitting at pretty much the maximum of that 60 inch distance away from me, it would have taken a minimum of 2 turns for them to move inside the 1st range band. and I would be firing with no penalties while they would be firing with penalties if they decided to go with any of the first 3 options... With the idea that they could use direct fire weapons with the scan for fire, they would probably just sit still and choose option d back at me, meaning that the whole game could have come down to a stand and deliver from 50-60 inches away... So, my thinking was just simply that by restricting the Scan to Fire to IDF only, you lower the chances of someone just sitting back and firing from distance... So, again, just wanted to see if anyone else had really tested it at any length yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.