Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 12 posts ] 

Do we play the same game?
Kotrin
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:44 am
Posts: 168
This reply from Ulmo on my Regeneration / Close combat poll made me scratch my head: why would one use Snap Fire to kill incoming opponents when First Fire already allows it in the first place?

I wanted to quote the rule but browsed more and more frantically NetEpic 5 rules without finding it. I was amazed and confused: could I have played wrong for so long?

By chance, I managed to find the suitable rule in 4.1 rulebook - at least, I wasn't crazy.

NetEpic 4.1, pg 22:
Firing into Close Combat
Troops with First Fire orders that are pinned by a charging enemy model must fire upon the model(s) that charged them, if they fire at all. Models that are charged by enemy models that cannot pin them may fire at any target using the normal targeting rules, as well as the non-pinning model that engaged it. Models not involved in the actual combat may fire into a close combat if the target model is not pinned.
Example 1: A troop stand on First Fire charged by a tank must fire at the tank that charged it.
Example 2: A troop stand charges a super heavy vehicle on First Fire orders, the super heavy vehicle is not pinned by the troop stand and may fire at any target, not limited to the troop stand.
Example 3: a land raider charges a troop stand. A nearby supporting tank may fire at the land raider since it is not pinned by the troop stand. The troop stand on the other hand is pinned by the land raider and therefore cannot be legally targeted.

This paragraph is sorely missed in NetEpic 5. I REALLY REALLY hope it's just an editing error!!!  :;):

_________________
: : www.stephane.info : :
"It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players" -- Eric Wujcik
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ulmo
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 12:32 am
Posts: 87
Location: Paris, FRANCE

(Kotrin @ Sep. 25 2007,13:19)
QUOTE
why would one use Snap Fire to kill incoming opponents when First Fire already allows it in the first place?

I my opinion, this is because units cannot shoot anymore when they are engaged in CC. Snap Fire allow them one chance to use ranged weapons before CC occurs.
Also remember that Snap Firing an unit charging you removes the penalty, so you shoot them normaly. So there is no great difference between your interpretation and what I'm saying.
But my rules implies you can only shoot at the first units charging you. This can be a great restriction...

I'd also like to mention the optional rule being discussed here and below, which show that pinned units are allowed to shoot, and that the optional rule should at least be moved into the core rule.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Kotrin
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:44 am
Posts: 168
First, I'd like to know if this change is really intended or just a typo.

_________________
: : www.stephane.info : :
"It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players" -- Eric Wujcik
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
primarch
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

Hmm... sounds like a typo to me. You can wait to first fire to fire at guys charging you...

OR

..you could shoot at this coming in in order to AVOID getting pinned.

Please notify zap of this and get it to WMN to correct in the gold version.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zap123
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:39 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 3065
Location: Brisbane, Australia
I like that rule kind of, it is great to stop the abuse of little things tying up big things, but reading that example I wonder if we've gotten a little carried away with the division of pinning class.  In the old days IIRC it was Titan/Preatorian; Knight/Superheavy; Everything else.  Being able to shoot a Rhino mobbed by 4 stands of infantry doesn't sound right to me.

_________________
Fire bad, tree pretty - Buffy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
primarch
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

Ya no, I would agree with you.

What pinning classes we'd keep and which we'd dump? How would that affect the rest of the rules?

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mojarn Piett
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:35 am
Posts: 5455
Location: Finland

(primarch @ Sep. 26 2007,03:20)
QUOTE
Hi!

Ya no, I would agree with you.

What pinning classes we'd keep and which we'd dump? How would that affect the rest of the rules?

Primarch

Hold on. The pinning classes were expanded specifically to get rid of the "Infantry brick wall" syndrome, where infantry stopped a charging battle tank on its tracks, a feat they'd obviously never be able to do in the RealWurld?.

Unless infantry manage to immobilise a tank when they attack it the tank is free to drive away and hose them with its AP weapons. That's why infantry must ambush AFVs to get results and preferably in dense terrain (cities, forests).

_________________
I don't know and I let who care. -J.S.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zap123
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 3065
Location: Brisbane, Australia
I finally found the rule that allows you to fire out of Close Combat.  Firing Ranged Weapons, 1) Assign Attack Dice, last sentance.  Only problem is that it basically precludes a unit with First Fire orders shooting if it gets based and pinned.  This is then overruled by the Snap Fire rule so isn't really an issue, but it would certainly be hard to find and is a bit inellegant.  The sentance from Snap Fire could be added here and the problem would be solved.

On adjusting the number of different pinning classes, after a quick troll of the Gold version of the rules:

- It would affect LoS as smaller pinning class units do not block your LoS.
- It would help HQ units as they would be generally harder to pick out.  I quite like this as HQ isn't anywhere near the protection it once was (I note the current situation of the KoS whose HQ units are Cav, but whose rank and file are Vehicles)
- Obviously affects firing in and out of Close Combat.  Also a change for the better IMO.
- Makes Elite and Skimmer more worthwhile.
- Makes it slightly harder to hold objectives (as a pinned unit cannot....shouldn't happen too often)

I'd be happy with the original pinning classes (if I've remembered them correctly).

_________________
Fire bad, tree pretty - Buffy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zap123
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 3065
Location: Brisbane, Australia

(Mojarn Piett @ Sep. 26 2007,06:47)
QUOTE

(primarch @ Sep. 26 2007,03:20)
QUOTE
Hi!

Ya no, I would agree with you.

What pinning classes we'd keep and which we'd dump? How would that affect the rest of the rules?

Primarch

Hold on. The pinning classes were expanded specifically to get rid of the "Infantry brick wall" syndrome, where infantry stopped a charging battle tank on its tracks, a feat they'd obviously never be able to do in the RealWurld?.

Unless infantry manage to immobilise a tank when they attack it the tank is free to drive away and hose them with its AP weapons. That's why infantry must ambush AFVs to get results and preferably in dense terrain (cities, forests).

Ummm, fair point.  However you're left with the targetting issues.  A stand of Ogryn tangle with some Warbikes.  The Ogryns' mates can shoot the Warbikes, but the other Orks can't shoot the Ogryn.....I see "realworld" issues with that too :).

KoS sprint across the board, and the IG Heavies shoot all the Nobz dead 'cause they were the wrong pinning class.    :p

I'm happy enough with the status quo, but it is a pretty big change to the way units interacted in the past.

_________________
Fire bad, tree pretty - Buffy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ulmo
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 12:32 am
Posts: 87
Location: Paris, FRANCE

(zap123 @ Sep. 26 2007,07:27)
QUOTE
[KoS sprint across the board, and the IG Heavies shoot all the Nobz dead 'cause they were the wrong pinning class. ? ?:p

Good point. Maybe send warbuggies into Cavalry Pinning class?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Kotrin
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:44 am
Posts: 168
Warbuggies are Warbuggies, we should not change them for anyting else (or they'll soon be able to enter buildings.... :p ) I guess the issue is related to HQ targeting and not pinning class.

But reading from the rules, this side-effect is completely assumed (Core Rules 5.0, pg 24)

Example: An infantry HQ stand in a group of other troop stands cannot be targeted unless it is the closest target within range. An infantry HQ stand among Titans will stand out like sore thumb, so it may be targeted.

So it's really a matter of pinning class, irrelevant to larger/smaller equations between HQ and surrounding units (the example given is a bit extreme but hey, at least it's clear!)

Handling those warbuggies obviously requires a coordinated assault if you want to save your Nobz.




_________________
: : www.stephane.info : :
"It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players" -- Eric Wujcik
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
primarch
 Post subject: Do we play the same game?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

These rules were instituted due to obvious, blatant abuse with the original system.

I think its fair that if you attack a unit that is beyond your pinning class, YOU SHOULD BE ERADICATED!

It penalizes unwise play and rewards tactical wise moves.

Okay, I believe there is nothing else to do here beyond clarifications and clearing things up.

Zap, I sent you an e-mail regarding getting the most updated files to WMN.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 12 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 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