Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Stubbdog

indirect fire question

Recommended Posts

There is a very easy solution to people that use the table edge to hide or attempt to use the drift rule to a benefit. Limit the amount of cover provided. Either take turns deploying cover or make sure you use the deployment rule in the book to decide who gets what side of the table to start from. That will usually make more people honest about how they are gonna play. And then even if you get somebody who wants to try to use the side of the table for cover just run a cav or tank section down their throats.

 

Later

 

 

 

Makes table edges likely places for minefields too. ::):

Now that's an excellent idea ! :blues:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a very easy solution to people that use the table edge to hide or attempt to use the drift rule to a benefit....

 

Honestly, if people are going to bend their tactics for fear of an IA attack, they just haven't looked at the datacards. Concede the center of the table, allowing my enemy concentrate all his firepower wherever he wishes, and in return I avoid an IA that has a 70% chance of missing me anyway?

 

Any fool plays like that deserves the beating that's coming...

 

PS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are all mking lots of assumptions and letting it snowball....

 

I don't need to go into the situation as to why the model was where it was (to get a decent direct shot firing angle if you must know) cause it makes no difference for the question that was posed.

 

The question is simply , is off the board off the board...? or is off the board, still on board for AOE?

 

Personally, I argue that if something does not land on board, it is off board and therefor out of play. If I can't walk, drive, or fly over it, it aint there (and dont give me examples like stalagtites on the board - you know what I mean).

 

My opponent felt it was still inside hte AOE even if it was off board.

 

At the time, I gave in and let it go cause I wasnt prepared to get my panties in a wad over that one thing. Not implying that my opponent was either, just saying I didnt care to arugue as things were light and jovial at the time. But, since this board is for asking these type of questions so that any future occurences can be nipped before they get started, I figured to ask it. Didnt mean for it to turn into a question of players values and ethics based on where they were standing on the board.

 

In warlord, off board is off board, but then again , in warlord, there is no drift (yet...) that I know of so its not an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah i get what your asking stubdog. I just responded to an earlier post with some lightness and a bit of light candor because it sometimes is fun to not only give solutions but a bit of attitude. In small amounts its almost expected to have a little ego and trash talking among friends. Especially if you're competitive at all.

 

Personally if an IF shot is off the table it doesn't exist imo. You play with a limit to the field not only for space and time savings but because it gets people involved and into the fight. IE no place to run and hide you better bring it or die etc etc.

 

Later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In most cases, Off Table is Off Table. But unless an opponent is playing the edges for an advantage (what that would be, I don't see), a drift off table that leaves a portion of the AoE on table is one of those fluke things that doesn't happen very often, and either way you rule on it, someone gains at least a short term advantage. So, personally, I'd go with the Odd/Even rule. Roll a die, Odds it does, Even it doesn't. Next time it happens, roll again.

 

Table edges are one of the limitations of wargaming that can effect the outcome of a scenario, and the smaller the table, the more effect it has. That's why I like to play on as large a table as possible, and have either a tournament director or a set of house rules to determine how to deal with these usually fluke circumstances. In cases where I can see both sides of the argument, I like to go with the Odd/Even rule.

 

My $0.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Does an IA that lands off of the table miss or might it hit if something is within it's AoE?" This is one of those things that I wouldn't care about either way, all else being equal as long as it was consistent. The problem here is that all else is not equal. Ruling that the IA automatically misses in this instance has brought up another problem, namely, an opponent who skirts the table edge in order to make IA's less effective.

 

Personally, (though I'd do it myself) I feel that this is a more unrealistic, heinous, and "cheese weasely", situation than either of the two choices which precipitated it. While I have heard many creative solutions to the newly created problem such as "yell at them and never play with them again", "arrange the terrain so that the tactic is less productive". and "place your minefields around the table edge". It occurs to me that these "solutions" are often highly arbitrary and ultimately, create even more problems. Isn't the easiest solution to simply rule that the IA hits and anything within it's AoE is a potential target? I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Off the table" is "Off the table" period.

 

 

Clean, simple, elegant.

 

 

Done.

I agree completely. The last thing I want to do is to find spot floating in the air off the table and then measure a radius to see if the AoE happens to reach the table and the center of a model. I never really thought about it until seeing this post, but I have always played "off the table" is no longer in play. If a drift roll located a AoE off the table, that was it. The radius of the AoE wasn't measured or even considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crux of the problem is that it wasn't specified in the book. I think there may have been a few too many assumptions on "gaming standards" which unfortunately will result in people saying "the book doesn't say I can't do it." The issue is there will be cases where what the person is trying to do will not mesh with the game design's intent and other times it will. Gotta fix the spots where things go against the intent and clarify things. That way we don't degenerate innocent questions into accusations of being "cheese weasels." The best thing to do when you don't have EE around to harrass is figure out an agreeable solution and go with that until you can get clarification later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the book doesn't say I can't do it.

The book also doesn't say that I can't take all of your minis, throw them in the trashcan and declare myself the winner. On a less dramatic level, the rulebook doesn't say anything about CAVs jumping off of skyscrapers, would you let someone get away with that? Saying that something isn't in the rulebook is just a cheap way of trying to cheat. The rules are there to tell you what you /can/ do, not to list every conceivable thing that you /can't/ do. It would have to be 10' thick. :poke:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point Chrome, but there are situations that can create contentious issues like this one. I'm saying that there were certain assumptions made about "the way things are done". Obviously every situation can't be covered, but I'd consider this one to be integral to the AoE/drift mechanic and should be mentioned. Like the assumption that by taking a Ranged Attack action you can fire all DA or IA weapons on the model, the rules don't specifically state that. If a person was completely new to the game and didn't have a BL nearby I could easily see that person thinking that he could only fire one weapon with a RA action. (Yes, I did provide feedback to that effect when the final beta was put out for us all to look over.) About that statement being a cheap way to cheat, it is, but there are people that will do it and they'll have to be dealt with accordingly by whomever their opponents are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like the assumption that by taking a Ranged Attack action you can fire all DA or IA weapons on the model, the rules don't specifically state that. If a person was completely new to the game and didn't have a BL nearby I could easily see that person thinking that he could only fire one weapon with a RA action.

Pg 87 (99 pdf)

Direct Fire and Indirect Fire Ranged Attacks - 2nd paragraph

When Activated, a Model may choose to fire all of their DA Weapon Systems or fire all of their IA Weapon Systems, but an individual Model cannot fire both a DA and IA Weapon System during a single Activation.

 

:poke:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected. Was thinking of the beta and didn't have the final in front of me. But do you see my point though about the AoE?

 

Edit: Actually, this is a good example of what I'm talking about re: assumptions. Having played before I assumed that RAs allowed that all attacks could be fired and I didn't read it as closely. This is how things get vague and people argue over whether or not something is allowed. Also makes me look like a dum#[email protected] ::): Thankfully I'm willing to admit a mistake. But to bring it back to the AoE, if you assume everyone is going to play it as off table = miss and leave it out, it isn't specified and somebody will try to use it to their advantage. Now, I'm not trying to say that Ed and Pat did a bad job, just that after you look at something long enough it's hard to see things that should be there or you understand but everyone else doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had it happen, but I would toss my vote in with the if it drifts off the table, but the AoE would still hit a model, that model takes the damage roll.

 

No matter what end of the cannon I'm on, I like it when things get hit. It also seems like a 'more fair' ruling to me, and puts more of a limit on cheesy play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Devil's Advocate in me is creeping out.

 

Taking the logic that an IA attack that's target point Drifted off the table can still hit items on the table, what's to then stop me from just placing my target point off the table and hoping it drifts back in?

 

Or, why not just measure your movement off the table and around that annoying piece of terrain.

 

 

Neither of these are explicitly stated in the book as well, but are considered to be standard gaming practice and shouldn't need to be stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...