Necron tomb spiders have an extra macro attack in CC...

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I have played against E&C and zombo many times using the rule that Jetpack troops can CC skimmers but Skimmers can choose to use FF. As a Tau player I though it tossed up a bizare question in reguard to the Support Craft rule. Zombo and I have had many um.... "discussions" in the past about it as I flatly refused to accept on terms of logic that a Marine with a rocket strapped to his back could essentially fly up to a manta and punch it. Apart from this stumbling block I must admit I don't think its a bad change to the rule (perhaps because the FF and CC of Tau skimmers is not much different ie. pathetic, so it doesn't really affect me much. No matter what my opponent rolls on, CC or FF, if they're engaged my tanks still die). I also enjoyed having the option to ram devestators and other such targets.

The Dark Eldar Reavers and Necron Abbatoir are both CC-skimmers as well and with army list development who knows what else is on the way (perhaps Tyranids or Chaos or who knows).  

And this isn't a b!tch and whine section - I didn't bring it up.  Well, I brought it up two and a half years ago but just let it go.  It got dredged up here recently so I am still in defense of my original position.  I doubt it will ever change and it will probably remain the goofy game mechanic it is.

The skimmer cc/ff rule was never clarified accurately from the beginning because there were only three armies and none of them had CC-skimmers.  The seated rules champ (Greg Lane) at the time never understood this IMO if you look at the thread link referenced on page one.   The original rule eludes to the fact that the ability to force a FF is tied directly to its ability to go above ground troops and shoot at them at will.

A CC-skimmer vs FF-skimmer would be a much different mechanic.  The argument used on this thread is that the FF-skimmer would be ducking and weaving and would be able to avoid being hit.  If that is the case though, I doubt it is doing much firing either so it all balances out in the end.  

And after Zombocom's posts I tend to agree with him that Ginger's solution wouldn't do it either.  I hadn't thought it all the way through.  

Allowing both skimmers to choose their FF or CC values and would be the best way to handle it and the easiest FAQ to write.  "If a skimmer assaults another skimmer, neither unit is forced to FF and each unit may decide to use either their CC or FF value."  It could be further clarified with an example.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Hena, you are making the vein in the side of my head bulge.  

The rules do indeed state that a skimmer can choose to use its CC or FF.  However, if BOTH the attacker and the defender are skimmers, BOTH should get to choose to use their CC or FF.  the RAW reads exactly that way.

Ex. Shining Spears attack Land Speeders in an assault and go BtB.  The defending player has the Land Speeders automatically choose FF.  The attacking player has the Shining Spears choose CC.  
One rolls FF, the other rolls CC.  The process is done.  

If the Land Speeder 'forces' the Shining Spear into a Firefight, that player has in essence taken away the choice of the Shining Spear player to choose CC or FF and broken the rule!  The Rule-as-written makes more sense this way than with the interpretation that we have now.

A rule change would actually IMO mean changing a rule.  This would be clarifying a rule and not changing it by a single word.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

The choosing one option precludes the other.  If I may "choose to choose my firefight" then I may also choose not to use my firefight.  There are no other options, Hena.

This statement:
If they do this then the enemy must use their firefight value also.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

It doesn't allude to that explanation.  It gives it outright.

However, it doesn't state it as part of the mechanic.  It gives it as a background explanation.  That's no different than any other background explanation.  A Thunderhawk critical talks about it crashing as the background explanation but a Thunderhawk on the ground that takes a critical is still destroyed because the mechanic is destruction, even though it can't crash as described in the flavor text.

Not a rule change - an FAQ.  The FAQ I proposed easily fits with the RAW and actually makes more sense.

_________________
Neal

Holy cow.  I couldn't get a reply written without 3 others in between.

_________________
Neal

I'll let it go.  I've been living with it for 2 1/2 years.  I still think you are mad if you actually believe the original rule intended for CC-skimmers to be forced into FF.  It never crossed anybody's minds at the time, but had it been an issue I doubt it would be as cut and dry as some seem to be making it.  It will always strike me as goof-ball call.

Maybe I'll ask Jervis in 2009.  

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Umm at the risk of causing veins to pop, it is the element of imposing an assault value on the opponent that I see as crucial here.

The current rule allows a skimmer to impose FF values on the combat. If this is already allowed, what is the problem in letting the attacking skimmer impose CC values on the combat in exactly the same way?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt