Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
Chroma
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Hena @ Feb. 22 2008,14:05)
QUOTE
Because it's statement saying that this is so. Any kind of such a thing unless you are sure is silly at best. In this case it does nothing to help the matter, but can make people to not bother about this anymore.

I said I'd go with whatever the majority went with, and wouldn't argue it... I wasn't saying I had the authority to declare that.

But you can hit target out LOS with barrages. And you can hit targets farther than a single weapon range if you have multiple weapons. Why would this be any different? Things are flexible in E:A.


Well, there's not a lot written in that firing arc box, the only real clue is this:

Finally, weapons that are noted as fixed forward firing can only fire on targets that lie within 45? of either side of the direction that the unit is facing.

So, I'd say "direct fire" weapons no, but "barrage" weapons yes; it seems to be something different than "range" though, more of an LOS issue, but still unclear.

So, a hypothetical:

A landed Thunderhawk with a single enemy unit in its Fixed Forward Arc and three enemy units in its left Fire Arc sustains fire and scores hits with all its weapons, how can they be allocated?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tiny-Tim
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:38 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm
Posts: 4893
Location: North Yorkshire
Just to add a point of interest.

I played Steve in a tournament last year and he restricted the number of attacks one of his Ferals had when I engaged it in the rear.

Having faced up to a Feral front on earlier in the game, it felt right that it didn't benefit from the extra attacks when hit from behind.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Crabowl
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:44 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Finland

(Tiny-Tim @ Feb. 22 2008,14:38)
QUOTE
Just to add a point of interest.

I played Steve in a tournament last year and he restricted the number of attacks one of his Ferals had when I engaged it in the rear.

Having faced up to a Feral front on earlier in the game, it felt right that it didn't benefit from the extra attacks when hit from behind.

It's nice that you have a house rule that uses fire arcs in assaults but there is no such rule in the rulebook. If that would be intended then surely there would be some mention of it somewhere? Take shooting modifiers from the master F.A.Q. for example:

Q: Do the Cover Save and Cover to-hit modifier apply in Assaults?
A: Defenders in an Assault get the Cover Save from any terrain they are in but attackers never get a Cover Save from terrain. The -1 to-hit modifier is not applied as there are never any modifiers to attack rolls in Assaults.

This is only one example but it does show that shooting rules do not automatically apply to assaults. However, if someone can point me to the rule that says fire arcs are used in assaults, then I'll use them.

_________________
Gief more guns for less points!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pixelgeek
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(Chroma @ Feb. 22 2008,04:51)
QUOTE
And I think "what the hell" is a bit strong in this context.

I think that building up false arguments to attack someone for no reason in a thread is also pretty strong.

Maybe you might want to quit that before complaining about the type of language it engenders

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pixelgeek
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(Chroma @ Feb. 22 2008,04:51)
QUOTE
There are no CC weapons in the Black Legion list that have fire arcs

So you're just trying to goad me into some sort of public spat then?

You launch an assault on me and the BL list based on a context that doesn't apply to the list and then you wonder why people get POed at you?

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
I think that building up false arguments to attack someone for no reason in a thread is also pretty strong.


Pointing out that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy is not a false argument.

I reference Jervis a lot when it comes to discussions of intent but we all know he's made some bad calls on mechanics.  Generally, I think his design choices are excellent, but when he makes an error it's usually because he has an idea in his head that doesn't work in play with other mechanics because he has an idea of the interaction in his head that isn't the way the rules read.  Putting a fire arc on an assault weapon is exactly the kind of thing he'd do simply because he didn't think it all the way through.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
dptdexys
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire

(Crabowl @ Feb. 22 2008,16:31)
QUOTE

(Tiny-Tim @ Feb. 22 2008,14:38)
QUOTE
Just to add a point of interest.

I played Steve in a tournament last year and he restricted the number of attacks one of his Ferals had when I engaged it in the rear.

Having faced up to a Feral front on earlier in the game, it felt right that it didn't benefit from the extra attacks when hit from behind.

It's nice that you have a house rule that uses fire arcs in assaults but there is no such rule in the rulebook. If that would be intended then surely there would be some mention of it somewhere? Take shooting modifiers from the master F.A.Q. for example:

Q: Do the Cover Save and Cover to-hit modifier apply in Assaults?
A: Defenders in an Assault get the Cover Save from any terrain they are in but attackers never get a Cover Save from terrain. The -1 to-hit modifier is not applied as there are never any modifiers to attack rolls in Assaults.

This is only one example but it does show that shooting rules do not automatically apply to assaults. However, if someone can point me to the rule that says fire arcs are used in assaults, then I'll use them.

Why would this be a house rule ????
The Ferals battlehead weapon is a FF only weapon with no other ranged attacks,if it was meant to be used all-round in an engage why would it have been given a fixed forward fire arc for it's 2 extra attacks.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
This seems to me to be a similar sitution as having a weapon with stats like this:


AT4+, Titan-Killer.


It's very clear what it means, even if it's not actually covered by the rules.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pixelgeek
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(nealhunt @ Feb. 22 2008,10:15)
QUOTE
Pointing out that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy is not a false argument.


That wasn't what I was referring to.

(Not that I don't think that this sort of thing is just rude and elitist in and of itself. We're not in a philosophy class so who cares if it is an "appeal to authority"? That is a whole different thing and I almost always get my back up when people revert to tossing around this sort of thing instead of actually addressing the point. Pointing out that Jervis is often wrong is the way to do this... not preaching to people like they are students in a first year philosophy class. )

That said, I am not sure what I was referring to since Chroma's post doesn't actually appear to say what I thought it said.

I thought he was implying that there were errors of the type being discussed in the BL list and that isn't the case.

So my unreserved apologies to him for getting POed in public about that.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CyberShadow
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:56 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
See? This is why all races should just not bother with these strange Titan things!  :D

To recap for the 'hard of thinking'... me!  :p

Standard Titans dont have fire arcs on close combat weapons.

Chaos Titans dont have fire arcs on close combat weapons, except for combat heads which are an exception that proves the rule.

AMTL Titans have fire arcs on weapon mounts, but it is easier if these are ignored if a close combat weapons is fitted (and only for the close combat attacks where a weapon has multiple modes of use).

Trying to second guess Jervis's intentions, and debating whether he is omnipotent is... troublesome.  :D

So, what exactly is the fracas about?  :cool:  :p

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pixelgeek
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(dptdexys @ Feb. 22 2008,11:12)
QUOTE
The Ferals battlehead weapon is a FF only weapon with no other ranged attacks,if it was meant to be used all-round in an engage why would it have been given a fixed forward fire arc for it's 2 extra attacks.

It clearly can't fire all around without the Titan turning. The head mount is fixed, barely moves and it would be unrealistic to assume that someone the Battlehead could fire to the side or rear in an assault when the weapon was being using as a firefight weapon.

I don't think that is the issue at hand though is it? Or are we expanding the debate to cover all Assault attacks?

I see a clear differentiation between firefight and CC weapons here and the arcs in the battlehead make total sense to me where the arc in the Tail on the banelord would not

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
He is still in frightful for the "appeal to authority" nonsense.


Not at all.

One cannot be respected in a debate when one relies on easy crutches like 'appeals to authority' and 'ad hominem' attacks.



Additionally, we all know that 'frightful' is the forum's censored version of $hit...

Is swearing really nessesary? Or continued personal attacks?




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
ragnarok
 Post subject: Question on CC weapons with reduced firing arcs
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:43 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Reading, England
I wish I never brought this up.  We should all know that Jervis is omnipotent. :D

I am still of the opinion that close combat and fire fight weapons should have fire arc.  If a feral can't turn enough to bring its head guns to bear, then a Reaver shouldn't be able to turn enough to bring a chainfist to bear.

_________________
Tyranid air marshal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net