Tactical Command :: View topic

So drop the FAQ you quote, Kyrt and replace with what I have here?

Other people's thoughts?

I totally disagree.

This could lead to players having to place models in such a way as to take into account the range of artillery plus base sizes. Along with this it is also a further hit on large unit formations.

There are several people on Facebook and here on the other thread that object to the FAQ ruling itself though and would prefer that the first template itself is also in range. (If deciding to add that it'd also need to be made clear if it's a part of the template that is also over a unit that should be in range, or if the restrictions for unit in range and template in range can be satisfied independently...)

Ya, you're not going to run into it with indirect barrages all that often, given how large their ranges are relative to a 4x6' table.

Given that it happened with a Griffon puts another check in the marginal column. Who takes Griffons?

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
Seems arrite' to me, assuming it's arrite', if you know what I mean.

Author:	IJW Wartrader [ Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
Same here.

Author:	Kyrt [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
No problems here. Indeed because the FAQ about the second template still exists I think this is necessary. See what I mean here: "Q: Is it possible to place extra Barrage templates so that they cover units that no weapon contributing to the barrage has range or a line of fire to? A: Yes, but only the extra templates." That implies the first template cannot be placed to 'cover units that no weapon contributing to the barrage has range or a line of fire to', ie all the units must be in LoF and range, which is clearly not the case. This FAQ might be better with the addition of 'cover ONLY units...'

Author:	Dave [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
So drop the FAQ you quote, Kyrt and replace with what I have here? Other people's thoughts?

Author:	Kyrt [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:29 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
Dave wrote: So drop the FAQ you quote, Kyrt and replace with what I have here? Other people's thoughts? Gets my vote. There are several people on Facebook and here on the other thread that object to the FAQ ruling itself though and would prefer that the first template itself is also in range. (If deciding to add that it'd also need to be made clear if it's a part of the template that is also over a unit that should be in range, or if the restrictions for unit in range and template in range can be satisfied independently...)

Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Artillery (Again) http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=33206	Page 2 of 3

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:06 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
There's also a couple of people who say the ruling is clearly correct, but they don't like it and want the rule changed and/or will house rule that part/the centre of the template must be placed within range.

Author:	Tiny-Tim [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
I totally disagree. This could lead to players having to place models in such a way as to take into account the range of artillery plus base sizes. Along with this it is also a further hit on large unit formations.

Author:	IJW Wartrader [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
Tiny-Tim wrote: I totally disagree. This could lead to players having to place models in such a way as to take into account the range of artillery plus base sizes. Along with this it is also a further hit on large unit formations. Having played this way for several years, it's not noticeably different in terms of how you place your units.

Author:	Dave [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
Kyrt wrote: There are several people on Facebook and here on the other thread that object to the FAQ ruling itself though and would prefer that the first template itself is also in range. (If deciding to add that it'd also need to be made clear if it's a part of the template that is also over a unit that should be in range, or if the restrictions for unit in range and template in range can be satisfied independently...) I think this is pretty clear cut from the rules. You determine which units are in range and (if it's a direct fire barrage) what you have line of fire to. Of those units at least one of them needs to be under the first template. Nothing in the rules says or even implies that the first template's placement needs to take into account range or LoF beyond these two conditions. Same goes with the old official FAQ, Neal's FAQ thread or the errata/FAQ in the printed rulebook. Tim, I'll echo IJW and say that we've played this way as long as I can remember. The biggest affect on model placement for us is the opponent having barrage, I've never stopped and tried to minimize hits based on a situation like this though.

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
I will say I think I've probably been playing it this way since I started playing this edition of Epic, and it's not come up before. Quite a marginal situation perhaps?

Author:	Dave [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
Ya, you're not going to run into it with indirect barrages all that often, given how large their ranges are relative to a 4x6' table. Given that it happened with a Griffon puts another check in the marginal column. Who takes Griffons?

Author:	IJW Wartrader [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
Where it kicks in frequently is for Death Guard, where both the Plaguereapers and Plaguehounds have 30cm direct-only barrages.

Author:	jimmyzimms [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
Dave wrote: Ya, you're not going to run into it with indirect barrages all that often, given how large their ranges are relative to a 4x6' table. Given that it happened with a Griffon puts another check in the marginal column. Who takes Griffons? [raises hands] but yeah not in anything NetEA based (the Tallarn Raiders list they're cheap and r0xxors light arty formation-everywhere else they're a sucky upgrade) This is so not a real issue as short range direct barrage weapons are pretty rare. IF really gives most shots some range relative to the table size so it's so fringe as to be unheard of

Page 2 of 3	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Artillery (Again)
I used the Griffon as a commonly-understood example. The actual situation it occurred in was with a Tyranid Dominatrix, which has a 15cm range BP3 attack. Notably there was also screening formation in front of the target, meaning I only had about 3mm of space to stand in that also allowed me a LOF gap to the side of the Dominatrix for my Hierodule to shoot through at the same target formation. Had I not had the Hierodule to account for too, I would have been able to get a bit closer (due to how the screening units were positioned), and the topic wouldn't have even come up. Or, had Tim deployed his screening unit ~2cm to the left, I wouldn't have been able to get my Dominatrix within 15cm of one of his target units, and again the situation wouldn't have come up. It feels like a fairly rare circumstance to me, but also felt like it was worth flagging up because I wasn't sure whether my interpretation was accurate to the rules or not... or whether the community would want to change the rule, once/if a greater awareness of the rule occurred.