| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5509 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Tactica [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? |
Question comes to mind after reading the first turn in Chroma's latest bat rep of BL vs. Tau... In Tau v4.3.3, under Tau Special Rules, Coordinated Fire, I'm looking at the last three sentences. Where it says, (and I quote)There is no obligation for all formations to take the same action, and these actions may be resolved in any order, but they must all fire at the same target foramtion. | |
| Author: | Chroma [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:44 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? | ||
The same could be asked about targetting formations that are out of range or that don't contain legal targets (AT vs AP). I'm wondering about that too. |
|||
| Author: | Tactica [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? |
Perhaps CS could wiegh in on his vision of this rule going forward if others do not have an opinion on the matter. |
|
| Author: | Lion in the Stars [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? |
Co-fire, as written, requires shooting a (valid, IMO) target. If there's no target to call co-fire on, there's no co-fire. [/rules-lawyer mode] Fluff-wise, I'd also say no, because co-fire was created to replace the combined assault that normal commanders get. |
|
| Author: | clausewitz [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? |
My common sense agrees with Lion on this. If there's no valid target then the only reason you would do this would be "gamey" i.e. using the rule for something that was not intended. But it would seem worthwhile for that to be made clear in the rule, or in some FAQ. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:28 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? | ||
I agree that it probably should'nt be allowed, but this is the first time I've had a situation come up where it could even be used for something else! Of course, if there'd been even one enemy on the table I would've been able to get a big chunk of my Tau out of the danger zone... |
|||
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? |
I think the rule as-written allows it and I personally have no problem with it. I don't even think it is particularly beardy/cheesy/gamey. How is this different than Orks using Double Move actions to get the Waagh activation bonus rather than trying to Advance even when the enemy is close enough that an advance would get them in range? Or using a Double Move to take up ground in the absence of a target rather than having to March? Those are stock tactics and have been since the Waagh rule was written. How is it different than an enemy assaulting the Tau only to find out that they Jetpacked out of range? Are they forced to close with the enemy? No. The Engage action doesn't require that you actually assault at the end of it, and even says specifically that if no units are in FF range, nothing happens. If the Tau move out of range, the enemy gets a free move as compensation. As was pointed out repeatedly when the "declare/resolve/declare" change was debated, it's entirely possible for a target to get out of range if it were to break before one of the CF formations activated. In that case, are you going to force the Tau player to extend as far as possible to try to get a valid shot because CF requires it? I hope not. The only potential in-game use I can think of off the top of my head would be a mass bugout for some reason. But I certainly can't see it generating a balance problem. |
|
| Author: | clausewitz [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? |
Neal. I am going to disagree with some of your assertions, or at least the conclusions drawn from them. Orks doubling when advancing would be enough movement is a trade off: better chance of activation versus better shooting. Using a double move to spread out instead of moving toward the enemy: this is no different than using a double to move away from the enemy or onto a flank etc. The only (arguably) dubious feature of this is when the Orks are doing it, as its not really the mad charge at the enemy that the Waagh bonus is supposed to represent, but how many Ork players actually play with no sophisticated un-orky taktiks? If you declare an assault against Tau jet pack units then its the Tau choice as to whether to withdraw or not. So its not really exploitable as the opponent can decide if its actually worse for them to withdraw. When the CF is declared and there is a valid target that subsequently breaks and runs thats also different, as this is reliant on the dice etc and so isnt part of the "false CF" issue, as it began as a valid CF. True it probably doesn't create a balance problem. But that doesn't mean we should sanction what is basically a perversion of the intent of a rule. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? |
I guess I just don't see a "coordinated movement action" rather than a "coordinated fire action" as a perversion of the intent. I thought it was done primarily to demonstrate Tau coordination on an army-wide scale. To me, the side-effect still fits so it doesn't bother me. What about it feels wrong to you? |
|
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? |
I think that this goes against the spirit of the rule, in that it was originally designed to allow Tau formations to hit a single formation hard and fast. The problem here is that I can see a case where three Tau formations rushing forwards to get good firing positions is fine, but rushing forward to meet the enemy is not such in character (although that being said, the cc value should put an end to that). Also, if we do decide to rule against this, we need to be careful to make sure that formations which are activated last are not at a disadvantage simply because other formations has totally destroyed the target. I am inclined to leave this as a possibility simply because I am doubtful that any additional clarifications and the extra rules and conditions would be worth the result. What is the worst way that this could be abused? |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:35 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? | ||
Doubling three units up for support in some kind of clipping assault is the only "abuse" possbility that comes to mind. In my game, it would've helped me get three units the heck out of the landing zone... would that have been abusive? |
|||
| Author: | clausewitz [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? |
"coordinated movement action" "coordinated fire action" These seem to be two clearly different actions to me. The CF is a Tau ability because they have the "computer networks" that give them better ability than everyone else at coordinating their shooting. "Coordinated movement" would seem to be more a function of the army's strategy rating and unit initiatives. So SMs are better at coordinating their maneuvres etc due to their better training and discipline (higher strategy and average initiative) then Tau. ?But they dont have the sophiticated drone technology etc that gives the Tau CF. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:44 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? | ||
Hit-n-run, brutha! ;) |
|||
| Author: | asaura [ Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | CF, Can it be used for movement if no target? |
First of all, the Commander ability common in other armies can also be used in this way. Granted, getting three formations to Engage only allows each of them a single move, while CF allows for Doubles, but the principle is the same. If this kind of thing is forbidden, it will call for some pretty fancy lawyerese to make it stick. Without pre-measuring, it's quite normal to fail to get in range. How can we tell a bona fide CF action with a big focus on redeployment from a sneaky CF-exploit with the sole intention of moving? Is it enough if one of the three formations gets within range of the enemy (not all that hard with all those 75 cm missiles)? I see no problem. "Moves-only-CF" is an ok side effect of the CF rules. (edit: I read Tactica's original post sloppily. He specifically referred to a situation with *no* possible target formations.) The rules for shooting (1.9.1) call for a target to be picked along with the shooter. No target -> No shooting. This would also mean Orks don't get to Double if there are no enemies in the field. Likewise, the assault rules (1.12.2) call for a target formation. No target formation -> Can't do assault. The same rules specifically allow choosing any formation on the table, even if you can't reach it, but, in the case of an all-drop enemy with no formations on the table, an assault can't take place. Verdict In the case Tactica presented (no enemy formations on board), CF can't be done. Also, a Commander-led combined assault can't be done. In a case where there is at least one enemy formation on the board, it can be selected as a target for shooting (allowing CFs, even if grossly outranged) or for engages (allowing Commander-led multi-Engages). |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|