View Full Version : Tailing Technicalities

09-04-2007, 03:00
Hi all,

Was playing some AI the other day, and an interesting question cropped up about tailing.

Two planes got into a position as illustrated here:


I thought that this would be a tailing situation (arc crossing other planes rear arc), the other player didnt (tailing plane out of front planes rear arc). Instead of getting mired down in an argument, we continued the turn assuming no tailing, and looked at the rules before the next turns moves were decided.

Anyway, looking at the rules it would seem that this WAS a tailing situation, even though it looks odd. The only requirements seem to be that its within 12", and with the front arc crossing the rear arc. However, this would lead to some rather strange situations, such as the one below, that dont look like they would realistically be 'tailing'.


The rulebook doesnt help with its diagram, which is a clear and obvious tailing situation.

We decided to play that BOTH planes arcs had to cross (front into rear, rear into front) in order for tailing to occur, until we could get consensus with other players...


09-04-2007, 03:31
No, you have to be within your opponents rear 60 degree arc, not just within front arc line of sight of it

ie your base has to lie within the enemies rear arc, and your front arc has to have line of sight to the enemy's base, and you have to be within 12 inches and one altitude level.

09-04-2007, 03:49



09-04-2007, 05:55
That is always how we have played it fattdex, as playing it literally is non-sensical. Techinally your front fire arc needs to cross there rear fire arc and you need to be in 12". So this would be legally tailing..


... Now that would be obsurd, so I've always taken it to mean your front arc must contain their rear line and their rear arc must contain your front line.

09-04-2007, 06:03
Here's one that's always worried me


My fighta has ended his move so he is over the enemies base. Now I can fire as the enemy Thuderbolt is definitely in front of me. However technically he can fire too as his front arc goes though my base....???? Makes no sense. It has lead us to playing with a hybrid scheme where we end up tracing lines though the stem for LOS, but measuring from base to base. Not technically what the rules say but actually makes it much cleaner to play.

09-04-2007, 06:18
you place bases as close as you can without touching... can't happen

09-04-2007, 08:15
I hear no echo.

09-04-2007, 08:22
It's says
if bases overlap then position the aircraft as close as you can to the correct position, so that the models are still facing the correct direction and can still stand up. It doesn't say they can't overlap just that if you can place them 100% in the correct position as the stem would have go though the base, shuffle them a bit.

09-04-2007, 08:53
The thing is, as far as i can tell, the rules dont say you have to be within the enemies tail arc, only that "the aircraft can draw a line from its front fire arc through the rear arc of an enemy aircraft" (p.13, Tailing Box, second para).

If you can provide a reference showing that you must be in enemies rear arc id love to see it! I believe that is the INTENT of the rules, but not what the rules say. As we know, they can be two different things.

mageboltrat: your situation would mean tailing is pointless because the plane couldnt shoot at the target...

09-04-2007, 10:23
ah i took that to mean that they get placed next to each other as close as they can get. my book isnt here dammit :P

And logic says that you have to be in the tail arc of the enemy craft to follow them in a tailing position, but i'm not even gonna bring logic into the situation.

best email forgeworld on them, they'll probably go into the faq

09-04-2007, 12:52
Your right it doesn't say you have to be in the enemies tail arc. I always took it to mean this too. Listen are there any more issues like this... We'll have a discussion and I will bundle the whole lot up and send it to Kinrade for clarification, because these are some major issues... The Other one was pre-measuring and movement.

09-04-2007, 12:54
mageboltrat: your situation would mean tailing is pointless because the plane couldnt shoot at the target...

I was just trying to point out that if you take it literally, then you get tonnes of really stupid situations as tailing... I mean head to head would be tailing as your front arc goes through their rear arc.

09-04-2007, 21:34
I also had this debate the other day.

we decided that to be tailing;

'each line drawn from your planes base which is used to define a fire arc MUST cross through the opposing planes line on the same side of his base.'

As we're both lads with common sense the issue of it being the rear fire arc didnt even come up, thats just obvious, even if its not written (PLEASE lets not get as stupid as the 40k RAW fools!)

my diagramatic contribution describing our 'house rule' is this:

this is where we draw the lines (lol)


what about this - the outer limits of legal tailing from directly behind?


09-04-2007, 21:41
to further our houserule,

I don't think that any firearc-line that crosses BOTH of your enemies lines is a legal example of tailing, as the angle is too acute:


10-04-2007, 01:28
yep, i think that is probably just as they meant for it to come out, and it makes the most sense.

10-04-2007, 02:20
Rev.. that is the best example of the rule I have seen.. .you couldn't write it up a bit more for each imager for me to put up on the Aerowiki site. I'll redraw the images a bit neater.

10-04-2007, 03:02
Yep, rev, thats good. With the last example, how about having the line cross over the enemy base, too, so that the plane is able to fire at the enemy, but not tail.

10-04-2007, 10:11
@ MBR yeh sure dude, if your working today i'm about to pop into the store anyway so I might have seen u b4 you read this...

@ Tyra yeh you have a good point. Tho my interpretation of the rules is that the ENTIRE base has to be within my fire arc to count as a legal shooting opportunity. that said I thinkit'd be clearer in those situations whether it was legal tailing or not.


10-04-2007, 10:49
Starting work at 2 so probably will miss you.

10-04-2007, 11:51

10-04-2007, 12:05
Posted up a start to this page here (http://aerowiki.wikidot.com/rule-clarifications).

10-04-2007, 15:28
thats really clear on the wiki, nice one mate.

I think this clarification is firmly within the intentions of the tailing rule.

10-04-2007, 16:19
Very nice page. One to add to my bookmarks for sure...