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

sustained fire and 2+ hits
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1325		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Yuber Okami [ Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:50 pm ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
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 ?:blush:
Author:  Killed by Death [ Fri Aug 12, 2005 4:00 am ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
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 ?:blush:

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.
Author:  Markconz [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:27 am ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
I often have titans in forests/ruins to claim cover from them.
Author:  cx2 [ Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
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.
Author:  nealhunt [ Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
Only infatnry gain cover bonuses on OW, not vehicles.
Author:  Legion 4 [ Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
Neal is correct !  And to paraphrase the E:A rules, "apply the cover bonus liberally" ... :D
Author:  Yuber Okami [ Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:51 am ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
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)?
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
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.
Author:  Killed by Death [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:35 pm ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
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.
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
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. :D
Author:  Legion 4 [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
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 !  :cool: :;):
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:53 pm ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
Works for me.
Author:  Killed by Death [ Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
Quote (nealhunt @ 19 2005 Aug.,14:27)
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. :D

Well that's right - when you're on your way getting there!

But when you actually  THERE I always unload.. that 1 lucky shoot is not gonna ruin my day! But more often than not, there seems to be clouded in terrain features that my little orkses can utilise for hiding! :D

Hehe I understand that hiding behind a squiggoth arse would demand special skills. But to a far extent so would hiding behind a buttload of orkeosaurus.  :cool:

Anyway I've cheated and I admit it!  :blush:

I must have the most selective memory on this forum!
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:32 pm ]
Post subject:  sustained fire and 2+ hits
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.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/