 
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 14 posts ] |
|
sustained fire and 2+ hits |
|
Yuber Okami
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits  Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:50 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:40 pm
Posts: 520
|
Hello from a new member! i have a question about the rules. I don't know if this is the place to put it, so if it isn't please move this thread to wherever it's ok.
If you have a unit which only has (or can only use) weapons wich require a 2+ to hit roll, does the Sustained fire action serve them, or it's a foolishness to give them that order? i say it because the rules state that an unmodified roll of 1 is always a failure, so the +1 to hit which the Sustained fire action is useless... maybe the Sustained fire action could make these units to repeat those unmodified 1 rolls or something else...
Your comments, please ?
_________________
"It would be most ilogical if i let you kick my ass"
-Spork, son of Spoon son of Fork
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Killed by Death
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 4:00 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:47 pm
Posts: 387
|
| Quote (Yuber Okami @ 11 2005 Aug.,22:50) | Hello from a new member! i have a question about the rules. I don't know if this is the place to put it, so if it isn't please move this thread to wherever it's ok.
If you have a unit which only has (or can only use) weapons wich require a 2+ to hit roll, does the Sustained fire action serve them, or it's a foolishness to give them that order? i say it because the rules state that an unmodified roll of 1 is always a failure, so the +1 to hit which the Sustained fire action is useless... maybe the Sustained fire action could make these units to repeat those unmodified 1 rolls or something else...
Your comments, please ? |
Well if they're shooting at something in cover it would make sense. Infantry standing still, buildings, armoured vehicles.. well - there are plenty of ways for inf to be in cover so I guess this will be the most obvious reason for the unit to sustain.
If they wanted to do indirect fire they'd have to be on sustained too.
_________________
If you suddenly find that I make any sense.... look out of your window for armageddon!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Markconz
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:27 am |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
|
I often have titans in forests/ruins to claim cover from them.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
cx2
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:41 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:20 pm
Posts: 74
|
|
I would use sustained fire or overwatch if I wanted them to stay still. I think you're right about a 1 always being a miss BTW.
Remember if your enemy shoots at a unit on overwatch they're -1 to hit.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:29 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Only infatnry gain cover bonuses on OW, not vehicles.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Legion 4
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:13 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
|
Neal is correct ! And to paraphrase the E:A rules, "apply the cover bonus liberally" ... 
_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Yuber Okami
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:51 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:40 pm
Posts: 520
|
|
OK, thanks for the comments, as i didn't remember the -1 to hit due to overwatch (it's an order my enemies rarely use). All this matter remembers me another question: if an infantry stand is in contact with a tank/vehicle, you get a -1 to hit it because it's supposed that the infantry unit gets behind the tank when it's under fire. My question is, do they get this bonus if they are in contact with a skimmer vehicle (like an eldar waveserpent or gravtank)?
_________________
"It would be most ilogical if i let you kick my ass"
-Spork, son of Spoon son of Fork
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:25 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Yes. Any AV counts. Incidentally, LVs do not count. They are too small and/or use too much maneuver for infantry to use them for cover.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Killed by Death
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:35 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:47 pm
Posts: 387
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 18 2005 Aug.,13:25) | | Yes. ?Any AV counts. ?Incidentally, LVs do not count. ?They are too small and/or use too much maneuver for infantry to use them for cover. |
What!
I must have misunderstood that part... that means you can't hide behind or next to a squiggoth... but that you can do it next to a orkeosaurus.
_________________
If you suddenly find that I make any sense.... look out of your window for armageddon!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:27 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
Yep. The cover chart in 1.8.4 specifies AV and WE for cover saves. No LVs. It's probably stated explicitly in the FAQ somewhere, but I won't swear to it.
The Squiggoth is an anomaly with respect to the vehicle classification rules. It seems like it should be big enough to take cover behind it but honestly, if you were an ork, would YOU want to take cover where that big beastie might step on you?
On a more practical note, with a transport capacity of 4, the most points that would be loaded in the thing might be ~100. The Squiggoth has RA. It's probably not worth it to unload. Just leave the troops in the doggone thing.
We're Orks. Kill all you want. We'll grow more.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Legion 4
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:37 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
|
Makes sense, Neal ... we're still not sure if we are going to use the S/goth transport option. Just to add, we leave KO AFVs on the board with a piece of appropriately painted up cotton (smoke & Flames !) on top (Ala - E40K), and can block LOS and be used as cover, (Ala - AH's Panzerblitz). It's realistic (?) and looks COOL !  
_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:53 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Works for me.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Killed by Death
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:39 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:47 pm
Posts: 387
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: sustained fire and 2+ hits Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:32 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
I would hardly call it cheating. It seems intuitive that a Squiggoth would provide cover. It certainly seems big enough.
The problem is, as I noted, the reasons for it being classified as an LV are different than for most LVs and outside of its vulnerability it doesn't seem to fit the assumptions of LV status.
If I were playing you, I'd certainly be okay with letting you houserule it at least long enouhg to try it out.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 14 posts ] |
|
