PDA

View Full Version : A targetting questions



Ratchet
30-04-2007, 09:21
Hi,

had my first game of AI over the weekend and it raised a question.

How much of the enemies planes bases need to be within you fire arc for you to be able to shot at it?

We couldnt find it in the rulebook clearly stated so we played it on the premise that the central stem needs to be within the fire arc for you to have the shot.

Is this right? Or in the rulebook anywhere?

Also, does anyone have the link to MageBoltRats manaever cards with the base sections cut out of them? We found the current card a bit woolly on where you should exactly place the base on a few of the cards.

fattdex
30-04-2007, 10:57
since it's hard to get into a good firing position, we always seem to play it that any part of the base can be in the fire arc.

rev
30-04-2007, 12:32
we play half the base or more - but only as a house rule.

mageboltrat
30-04-2007, 19:02
Rules state anywhere on the base. But I tend to prefer stem too.

orangesm
30-04-2007, 19:59
Using the stem works well as this is also half the base normally, and is how my group does it. It is kind of a carry over from BFG.

kris.sherriff
17-05-2007, 10:53
The rule book says that you use the base edge and specifically mentions not to use the stem for all measuring of range. The section on targeting says that an aircraft has to be in your fire arc and within range so if you can draw a line from your arc of fire to your targets base edge then you can shoot it.

On a side not only using the stem must make it next to impossible to line up shots? Taking in to account how strict the rules are for movement and turning.

fattdex
17-05-2007, 11:27
We mean, from the stem inwards, ie the inner half of the base. so that it is easier to call whether it is in or out, otherwise, if the very tip of the corner of a base is near the line of sight arc, it could lead to arguments whether it is in or out. But if the stem is within the line of sight arc, it's more clearly on the inside of it.

rev
17-05-2007, 15:58
I dont bother with all the stem stuff,

if its half or more of the base, its viable, if not, its not.

mageboltrat
17-05-2007, 16:00
I dont bother with all the stem stuff,

if its half or more of the base, its viable, if not, its not.

er isn't that the same thing rev?

Darnok
17-05-2007, 17:43
I dont bother with all the stem stuff,

if its half or more of the base, its viable, if not, its not.

It's actually equivalent: if the stem is in the fire ark, so is at least half of the base, and vice versa.

rev
17-05-2007, 19:21
isn't that the same thing rev?

Kinda I guess,

The whole stem thing is just a specific we dont use.

we use a tape measure, side on and look down birds eye on the plane. If the base is half in, then its a viable target.

I'll discuss it with nick and see if we want to revert to the 'any portion of the base' rule, but half seems more congruent with the other GW systems.

rev

mageboltrat
17-05-2007, 20:35
I must admit I prefere it.

Tyra_Nid
18-05-2007, 03:36
Er, we just use if the fire arc can hit a base, you can hit it? Thats all that is required, IMO.

Unless you are playing with anals who are going to argue every time there is a base 'clipping' situation.

rev
18-05-2007, 09:05
Er, we just use if the fire arc can hit a base, you can hit it

yeh but how much of the base?

any portion of it no matter how small?

Rancemeister
18-05-2007, 10:21
What about ships that are larger than the base they are on (like the Vampire Raider)? Surely you don't need to have half the base (in their case this would be well over half the ship too) in your fire arc to target it? We use the rulebooks definition for this (i.e. any part of the base edge), it kinda reflects a winging hit for the smaller planes........

orangesm
18-05-2007, 13:39
That is fine if your group is consistent. But like Gothic I doubt the scale of the battlefield matches up with the scale of the aircraft. In Gothic you have to have the stem in your fire arc, which is where a lot of us got the idea. The measuring base to base takes care of them not being dots on the horizon.

Rancemeister
19-05-2007, 10:32
Seems to me that Forge World take great care in all details of their models and that includes scale. So I reckon that the scale of the models are at least consistent if not the actual battlefield (by this I presume you mean movement and firing measurements in relation to the size of aircraft). If this is true then I definitely think that "any part of the base" is a better and fairer mechanic for targeting.....

kris.sherriff
20-05-2007, 20:02
Its not like you are sniping a single shot at the target aircraft you are putting down fire in to the area you think it is going to be in when the bullets get there which is why I think any part of the base is fine.

HarkonGreywolf
17-06-2007, 13:17
OK having read this thread I have some questions for the enlightened AI players amongst us.

I agree with the approach of any part of the base being in the fire arc is good enough. It's difficult enough to score hits without not being able to hit unless you're virtually directly lined up.

However, Brimstome is currently building a Tau Manta! Now this thing is big, really big! In comparisonm to the Fighters and Bombers in normal use.
Presumably it will be on a Hex AI base, although you won't be able to see the base 'coz the ship is so big!

Now my question is, without being able to see the base easily, using "any part of the base" as a firing target is going to be difficult, would any of you object to the whole ship being a "viable target" in this case, or in the case of any really large ship?

Given that it has a massive amount of "Hits" (14 IIRC!!) and is very unlikely to sustain sufficient damage to bring it down in a standard game, shouldn't it be treated as a somewhat "Large Target" and the actual model itself used for seeing whether it can be hit?

Harkon Greywolf

orangesm
17-06-2007, 15:13
hmmm.... Right now the only aircraft that may fall into the "Large Aircraft" category are the Thunderhawk (you can still access the base) and the Manta (we need to figure something for this behemoth). Down the road there will probably be the addition of the Chaos Heavy Bomber. If an encouraged house rule (House Rule that is commonly used) were created I think that a definition of Large Aircraft would be needed (aircraft with more than 6 Hits fx) and the effects it has - mainly just need to get 1/4 of the model in your fire arc (I say this so that you can not clip it having an antenna or something) to target the Large Aircraft.

HarkonGreywolf
17-06-2007, 17:30
Sounds like a good suggestion, but the trouble with that is people will argue over what's a quarter of the model, it's not a perfect circle or anything.
Rules are great, people are a pain! ;)

As far as I remember there aren't any obvious "antenna" type bits on it, and that means to me you could have "hits on any part of the plane" because who's to say what you hit isn't crucial no matter where it's situated?

And no Brimstone, I'm not just arguing the case to be able to shoot your Manta down easily! ;)

It is going to be a problem without another FAQ from FW and I don't see that happening any time soon.

This game should go into Specialist Games with the amount of updates and user submissions they get! And eventually when the initial rush is over they could "Living Rule Book" the game! It's never going to be a "mainstream" game is it?

HG

Col.Gravis
17-06-2007, 17:37
The thing is if your measuring to hit ranges to the model itself then you should also be measuring fireing from the manta from the model also, you cant say one rule for one thing and a different for the other.

That seems okay until you get to arcs for said weapons, where do you measure from so it's standarised?

And on the subject of arcs, it would be so easy to tail the behemoth playing it like that, and where to the tailing arcs start and end?

To be honest though it might be a little awkward I think it would be a better idea to just manage with the hex base, I mean I'd imagine its not a piece you'd be using in every game anyway.

HarkonGreywolf
17-06-2007, 19:25
You raise a valid point.
This isn't as easy as it first seems eh?
OK the fire arcs are going to have to come from the hex base, or the lines just aren't accurate.
But this does nothing to address the fact that this is not just a large target, it's a huge, massive, ginormous target! ;)
Even an Ork couldn't miss something as large, slow and ponderous as this!
And yet it's still only 5's or 6's to hit??
Just seems odd.
We do need some guidance or profound thinking on this.
And yes you are correct regarding the measurement of firing.

OK, let's address this then:
Fire arcs are from the hex base,
Measurement to and from is via the hex base,
Target within the firer's arc? The body of the ship?

This doesn't seem too bad, it gives the results that arcs and measurements are per the base, but to hit it is slightly easier because of its size. Any good?

I know it's a mix'n'match approach, but as someone so rightly said earlier "we need to address this!"

And don't forget the Manta is the only really large ship ... so far! If it's not a "2 or 3 up" that Chaos Mega ship is at least as big! So this will come up more often as time goes by.

HG

Col.Gravis
17-06-2007, 22:50
By that logic though comparably how would a Guardsmen miss the metaphorical barn door thats in base contact with him in 40k, yet still he only hits 50% of the time, game mechanics dont always follow a logical path.

To be honest I would leave things as they are, at least for the time being, I'm really not sure how much FW have play tested the game though I've personnly not found too many problems with it yet, I dont think I've heard any mention of any serious problems from anyone infact.

Play a few games with the Manta using standard rules first and see if its overpowered for its point cost (not having faced one I'm not in a postion to truely comment yet, though it does look damn intimidating!), if you find it is then there may be call to look into some sort of rules adjustment to make it an easier target reflecting its huge size, if not then to make it easier to hit just breaks the mechanics of the game which otherwise work fine (even if it goes make it more logical in a real world sense), I think its gota be remembered at the end of the day it's a game not a simulation.

HarkonGreywolf
18-06-2007, 08:53
He he!
Too true sir! ;)

OK, I'll leave things the way they are at present, but then when my Orks can't hit that Manta sized door, I'll be back! <<Best Arnie voice!>>

I don't think it's going to make an appearance until a few weeks time whilst we get to grips with the basic planes.
It is a fearsome prospect to have a go at! 14 Hits makes it uncannily survivable!
On average, an Ork Fighta in close range on the same altitude is going to score 0.8889 Hits per turn!
That's 16 Turns for 1 plane in close same Alt or 16 planes in 1 turn!

That's an awful lot of killing, especially when you appreciate that there will be huge amounts of killing coming back at you!!!

Should be amusing if nothing else! :D

I will report back once I've faced off against it.

HG

Col.Gravis
18-06-2007, 09:31
Yeah was pondering over it, your Orks will struggle with it I'd imagine given Tau are amongst their most deadly at short range as well I guess, I've spoken to lomo my regular Tau opponent and I think we're gonna proxy a Manta for a game just to see how it plays, you've got me thinking about how best to deal with it now lol

HarkonGreywolf
18-06-2007, 14:04
Well, thinking is good for you ain't it? ;)

Actually AI has got me thinking about the game more than any other so far.
And at my age I need all the help I can get! LOL

HG

HarkonGreywolf
21-06-2007, 19:27
OK, I know it's against the rules to post again without a response, but I want to add to this thread due to a recent release.

The new Chaos Super-heavy has just opened up this large target debate again as far as I'm concerned.
We now have 2 of these monsters, which are incredibly difficult to bring down given current rules and targetting interpretations.

I think some sort of concession should be made available otherwise the simple rule will be to just include a Super-heavy with every air force and you probably won't lose the game.
Which is fine for Tau and Chaos, what about the rest of us?
(Who said there were 3 Super-heavies? Am I missing the obvious here?)

HG

orangesm
21-06-2007, 20:02
I am not sure it is so hard to take down the 'Super-Heavy' aircraft.

Firstly they are bombers and are expensive. If a Chaos Player plays a Harbinger, an IN player trying to complete a similar mission would have 3-4 Marauders which could actually be harder to take down than a Harbinger or Manta.

Secondly, how many people have played games using the Manta? What is the 'record' of battles with "Super-Heavy" aircraft on the table.

A note that the Tyranid Air Hive has multiple Super-Heavies at its core.

kris.sherriff
22-06-2007, 16:51
Having palyed a lot of AI I can say I havn't seen any problems with taking down large targets. Remember that they are less manovarable than most other fighters and also slower. This almost entirely negates the 'clipping' issue as it is so easy to line up a good shot any way.

HarkonGreywolf
23-06-2007, 09:21
OK, good points being made here.
As I said, I am waiting to make a definite recomendation until I get a chance to play against one of the Super-Heavies, this is just something which struck me having read the Stats of these beasts and worked out the chances of my Orks being actually able to take it down. (That's very low by the way! :( )
As I only play Orks at the moment, they are all I have experience of.
It may be that the IN has better options to go up against these S-H's than some other races.

Any one else faced off against one yet?

HG

kris.sherriff
23-06-2007, 11:14
A would love to face a super heavy with my hell blades remember they can only target one aircraft per arc of fire so I may lose one blade per turn but the rest would be ripping in to them.

HarkonGreywolf
23-06-2007, 11:48
And to be fair to the super-heavies, it seems slightly unlikely that with all that all-round unlimited firepower they can only target 1 object per shooting phase.
To counter my large target idea I would also say that a Super-heavy should be able to split fire over 2 targets per turn.
This would then be more representative of the nature of the beasts, yes they would be easier to hit because of their very size and nature, but due to those very attributes it would enable them to be more effective in shooting.

So at least I'm looking to balance my suggestions here! LOL

HG

Col.Gravis
23-06-2007, 11:57
Its the normal rule, they can target one object in each arc they have weapons :-s seems fair enough really.

HarkonGreywolf
23-06-2007, 12:11
D'oh!
I'm a complete idiot! :o
I totally forgot you can shoot in all fire arc directions already where you have weapons that can bear!!
(Please forgive an old man his memory lapses! It stems from playing only Orks because I tend to fixate on the target I can see on front of me! LOL)

OK so modifying that, would it be fair to increase a super heavy's ability to hit more than one target in any 1 arc per turn?

For example, a super heavy is surrounded by fighters all trying to take it down.
There are 2 fighters within its front arc and 1 each in every other arc! (Some very good flying by the enemy!!) it can already shoot at 4 targets, should a super heavy be able to shoot at the 2 in the front fire arc to make the difference on the "Large target = +1 To Hit" modification?

I'd be interested in finding out whether anyone thinks this would stiill retain balance. I'm looking to set up some "House Rules" to try out when I finally do persuade my opponent to use his Super Heavy against me.
Obviously I'll play first with the rules as they stand, but as I said, having worked out the odds stacked against me I feel the need for some modifcations.

HG

Col.Gravis
23-06-2007, 12:40
Could certainly try it too see how it plays, dont forget though some weapons are in fixed hull mounts and not turrets (i.e. a Manta's Iron Cannon IIRC), it would be rather difficult to target seperate targets with such weapons.

Perhaps one way to do this would be to say weapons of fixed arc can target a single object in their arc with those with variable arcs, which by their nature are likely to be defensive turrets (i.e. Tau Burst Cannons, Marauder Dorsal Turrets), can target any illegible target regardless of what 'fixed' weapons are doing.

HarkonGreywolf
23-06-2007, 12:47
Sounds viable there mate!
Thanks for that and for your help so far.

I'll ponder further and see what I can come up with as a trial house rule.

Shame we haven't got anyone else's input as well, the more the merrier as they say! :D

Have you managed to get a game against that "proxy" Manta yet? I'd be interested in your opinions.

HG

Col.Gravis
23-06-2007, 12:51
Aye, I might see about having a play around as well, but yeah, we need more input here lol

I've not had a chance to yet no, I might see if lomo's is free tommorrow for a game or three, if not it'll probably be Thursday when the chance arrises.

HarkonGreywolf
23-06-2007, 14:59
Good luck and have fun!

HG