Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Basing, pinning and firing
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=11154		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  zap123 [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:14 am ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing
Hi All,

In a thread a while back we noted that while the Core Rules explicitly allow shooting into Close Combat dependant on pinning class (page 22, Firing Ranged Weapons, 1) Assigning ....although the rule is proved by the negative), nowhere does it say units that have been based but not pinned can shoot out. ?There is a rule in the Optional Rules book that allows this (page 7, Ignoring Close Combat), but a unit doing so loses its 2D6 in the subsequent close combat. ?In a seperate thread the effect of the greater granularity of pinning classes on the HQ rule was noted. ?So, Primarch asked us to fix the first point. ?I have a couple of options I'd like to float:

a) We allow units not pinned to be shot at, and to shoot out with no ill effect (presumably if on First Fire). ?However, we "lump up" the pinning classes so this doesn't become a complete free for all, eg pinning classes become:

Infantry/Cavalry/Light Artillery/Walkers
Vehicles/Heavy Artillery/Superheavies
Knights/Titans/Praetorians

b) We keep the existing pinning classes, and allow units not pinned to be shot at, and to shoot out losing their 2D6 in close combat. ?(kind of what exists today)

c) We keep the exisitng pinning classes. ?Units in base to base contact may be shot at if they are more than 2 pinning classes larger than the largest enemy unit basing them. ?A unit with First Fire orders that has been based by enemy units may still shoot at targets not in base contact with it if it is more than 2 pinning classes larger than the largest enemy unit basing it.

d) as above, but just "at least 2 pinning classes larger".
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing
I'm leaning towards a), but I would keep the pinning classes the same for determining who is pinned, but "lump together" for shooting in/out of CC. However, with a good argument, I could be convinced either way.

Just out of curiosity, which way do you favor, Zap?
Author:  loofnick [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing
a) makes the optional 'zone of control' rule a lot easier to use, which suits me.  Only downside is that I don't like cavalry being held-up by infantry, and it's a larger change which may have knock-on tweaks in other parts of the rules.

b) I really don't like the loss of 2D6; it's just another thing to keep track of.  Besides if it's big enough to ignore the attackers and fire out of CC, it should have enough crew to also do CC without penalty.   We have used the rule from the Optional's book (cos it just made sense to go with the Core rule) but couldn't be bothered to apply the no D6 in CC.

c)  good stuff- should be easily acceptable and in-line with optional 'Overrun' rule (2 pin classes being needed for that as well).  

I would also be happy if they can fire on advance fire (I don't see any reason to differentiate- models so much larger shouldn't be stopped from firing after CC.  I'm surprised it's not in the titan rules, or perhaps I missed it.

Option a) for me please (other rules may need tweaking to fit the change) mainly to help zone of control though, otherwise c) would also be good.
Author:  yogozuno [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing
My limited experience leans towards A, but I suspect that altering pinning classes could have unexpected flow-ons to special rules, even if it doesn't affect anything in the main rules. In light of that, my first choice would be C.
Author:  zap123 [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:43 am ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing
Well, seeing I was asked :).  I originally favoured A) as it helped with the HQ thing and also made the optional ZOC rule work better, but as a couple of you have already noted the rule of unintended consquences would probably bite me in the ass.  Some obvious results (now that I think about it) would be that Knights would become much more useful and Cavalry less so.  So with that little revalation in mind I lean towards D.  It has much the same effect without upsetting anything else and does away with "lose the 2D6" which is unnecessay IMO.  Having said that I can understand why you might want to pick C, but I'd like my Warlord to be able to ignore that Rhino :D.
Author:  primarch [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:20 am ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing

(zap123 @ Dec. 05 2007,02:14)
QUOTE
Hi All,

In a thread a while back we noted that while the Core Rules explicitly allow shooting into Close Combat dependant on pinning class (page 22, Firing Ranged Weapons, 1) Assigning ....although the rule is proved by the negative), nowhere does it say units that have been based but not pinned can shoot out.  There is a rule in the Optional Rules book that allows this (page 7, Ignoring Close Combat), but a unit doing so loses its 2D6 in the subsequent close combat.  In a seperate thread the effect of the greater granularity of pinning classes on the HQ rule was noted.  So, Primarch asked us to fix the first point.  I have a couple of options I'd like to float:

a) We allow units not pinned to be shot at, and to shoot out with no ill effect (presumably if on First Fire).  However, we "lump up" the pinning classes so this doesn't become a complete free for all, eg pinning classes become:

Infantry/Cavalry/Light Artillery/Walkers
Vehicles/Heavy Artillery/Superheavies
Knights/Titans/Praetorians

b) We keep the existing pinning classes, and allow units not pinned to be shot at, and to shoot out losing their 2D6 in close combat.  (kind of what exists today)

c) We keep the exisitng pinning classes.  Units in base to base contact may be shot at if they are more than 2 pinning classes larger than the largest enemy unit basing them.  A unit with First Fire orders that has been based by enemy units may still shoot at targets not in base contact with it if it is more than 2 pinning classes larger than the largest enemy unit basing it.

d) as above, but just "at least 2 pinning classes larger".

Hi!

I beleive D, due to the already mentioned "some units would do better than others" reason.

One of the reasons we "unlumped" pinning classes was due to all the quirky situation that crop up with too sweeping pinning classes.

I remember when rushing titans on first fire with rhinos was a valid tactic, or doing the same with tanks.

It does add complexity, but the desired practical effect (meaning reasonably engaging units that are suitable for pinning as a tactic) happens during game play as opposed to "gamey" solutions due to holes in the mechanics.

So D is the best solution.

Primarch
Author:  zap123 [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:55 am ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing
Done.  Were there any other things that needed fixing up in the Core Rules that anyone can remember?
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing
I have no problems with D.
Author:  Ulmo [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing
Imagine a tank in CC with some infantry, parts of the tank's fight will be attemps of moving over the troops, escaping from thrown bombs, ... Not moving to adjust some target will allow the infantry to hit where they want.
So in my opinion the loss of the 2D6 is justified.
Even in the case of titan vs tanks, letting the tanks adjust from very close range seems dangerous. And remember that the titans don't really need their 2 dices against most infantry/cavalry, and have PD too (correct me if they can't shoot while engaged in CC).

I find C) or D) much better than A) because we already have pinning classes, and I don't want to have classification for each different action in the game. And D) is in touch with the "Overrun" rule (Core rules, p16).

In my opinion First Fire shouldn't be needed but I'm not against (maybe explain me why).

So I vote B+D, or D+remove 2D6.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing

(Ulmo @ Dec. 06 2007,14:11)
QUOTE
In my opinion First Fire shouldn't be needed but I'm not against (maybe explain me why).

You need First Fire orders to be able to fire out of CC, because CC occurs before Advance Fire. The sequence is First Fire - CC - Advance Fire.
Author:  yogozuno [ Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:04 am ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing
Imagine a tank in CC with some infantry, parts of the tank's fight will be attemps of moving over the troops, escaping from thrown bombs, ... Not moving to adjust some target will allow the infantry to hit where they want.
I disagree whole-heartedly with taking away the CC 2d6.

The whole point to this rule, though, is that a significantly smaller enemy just can't affect your performance as much. So, yes, the driver of a Baneblade or Titan might need to change course to step on the infantry, but the gunners are already catering for course changes in their firing, and are able to fire completely over the attacking infantry. This is different to, say, an enemy rough rider squad, where each man has to concentrate on steering, fighting and firing.
Author:  primarch [ Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing

(yogozuno @ Dec. 06 2007,22:04)
QUOTE
Imagine a tank in CC with some infantry, parts of the tank's fight will be attemps of moving over the troops, escaping from thrown bombs, ... Not moving to adjust some target will allow the infantry to hit where they want.

I disagree whole-heartedly with taking away the CC 2d6.

The whole point to this rule, though, is that a significantly smaller enemy just can't affect your performance as much. So, yes, the driver of a Baneblade or Titan might need to change course to step on the infantry, but the gunners are already catering for course changes in their firing, and are able to fire completely over the attacking infantry. This is different to, say, an enemy rough rider squad, where each man has to concentrate on steering, fighting and firing.
Hi!

I agree. From a game balance point of view I don't think its a good idea.

Primarch
Author:  scream [ Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:16 am ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing
I need a little confirmation about the "at least" in d).

MegaCanon Goliath (heavy artillery/class 3) is engaged in CC by some scouts (infantery/class 1).

Can the Goliath shoot what it was supposed to shoot initialy and ignore the charging scouts (there are 2 classes between him and the scouts) ? Or only classes 4 and 5 units could ignore class 1 charging them ?

Thanks for your replies  :)
Author:  zap123 [ Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:47 am ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing
"At least 2" means "greater than or equal to 2", so yes the Goliath could still fire its' barrage under option D.
Author:  darkangel [ Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Basing, pinning and firing

(zap123 @ Jan. 08 2008,23:47)
QUOTE

maybe my question could be put here!?

last game we discussed that the squat praetorian behemoth could use his heavy bolters as PD?!

a)
the behemoth was attacked in cc by vypers. if his heavy bolters are PD, he can first be activated in the ff segment to use his main weapons to shoot at other units while ignoring the vypers and can be activated a second time beforte cc to use his heavy bolters (if PD) to shoot the vypers.

correct?

b)
to the discussion above:
a superheavy tak, attacked by infantrie, can shoot at other units while ignoring the infantrie but shoot pd at them before cc?

c)
but if he is attacked by cavalry, he is actually not pinned, but must set his focus on the attacking vypers and can not shoot at other units but his whole weapons incl. PD at the vypers before cc?
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/