| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Pinpoint attacks and WE formations http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15054 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | nealhunt [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Pinpoint attacks and WE formations |
I always read it as being able to target different WE formations and that multiple hits on the same formation would be allocated as normal. However, I can see how people could come to the "WE Sniper" interpretation. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Pinpoint attacks and WE formations |
The rules to me read that the player with the spacecraft gets to choose which war engines are to be targeted. Since you can target specific war engines in separate formations, it makes no sense to me that you couldn't target specific war engines in a single formation. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Pinpoint attacks and WE formations |
Targetting is usually done on a "target formation" basis and, usually, a war engine is a single model formation, so I guess it doesn't come up that much. A strict reading of the pin-point attack rule would allow for individual *model* targetting, even within a formation... and, is that a bad thing? I think it should be fine, as 2 x Pin-point attacks is the most that are out there so it's really not going to be game-breaking... unless the spaceships are priced too cheaply... 
|
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Pinpoint attacks and WE formations |
A related question would be whether you have to specify both targets before dicing for the first, or whether you may establish the results of that attack before choosing whether to use the second attack elsewhere. |
|
| Author: | daemonkin [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Pinpoint attacks and WE formations |
Quote: (Ginger @ 06 Mar. 2009, 15:07 ) A related question would be whether you have to specify both targets before dicing for the first, or whether you may establish the results of that attack before choosing whether to use the second attack elsewhere. I think declaration before rolling is the most fair. Represents 2 Admirals co-ordinating firepower together to neutralise 1 specific target. If 1 blows it up, oh well at least it was destroyed then! D. |
|
| Author: | Lord Inquisitor [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Pinpoint attacks and WE formations |
I have always assumed that "target" meant "target formation" with regard to War Engines and that hits are allocated exactly as with normal Titan Killer (D3) hits. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Pinpoint attacks and WE formations |
I thought the same thing as well, "target formation"... but the rule actually seems to be different. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Pinpoint attacks and WE formations |
I thought the same thing as well, "target formation"... but the rule actually seems to be different. Indeed it is. 4.3.4 Pin-Point Attacks Pin-point attacks may be made on enemy war engines (war engines are the only things big enough for a spacecraft to pick out on the battlefield). Pick a target anywhere on the table and then attack it with any pinpoint attacks the spacecraft may have. You may target different war engines with each pin-point attack if you wish, or concentrate all of the attacks on a single target. Note that you do not need to record the co-ordinates of pin-point attacks. Everything about the language indicates that the 'target' is an individual War Engine, not a formation with a War Engine in it.  It is a mechanic that exists outside of the typical Epic game and as such goes against the grain on sniping and splitting fire, but that is precisely how it was written and IMO how it was intended. Saying this is done by targeting formations opens the rule up to all sorts of allocation issues such as striking non-WE targets and other complications. The RAW simplifies this one-time event quite well. As for targeting, I would say that you should declare your targets first, then fire. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Pinpoint attacks and WE formations |
Quote: (Moscovian @ 06 Mar. 2009, 18:37 ) Everything about the language indicates that the 'target' is an individual War Engine, not a formation with a War Engine in it.  It is a mechanic that exists outside of the typical Epic game and as such goes against the grain on sniping and splitting fire, but that is precisely how it was written and IMO how it was intended. Saying this is done by targeting formations opens the rule up to all sorts of allocation issues such as striking non-WE targets and other complications.  The RAW simplifies this one-time event quite well. As for targeting, I would say that you should declare your targets first, then fire. I'm inclined to agree, but Rug makes a good point as well. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Pinpoint attacks and WE formations |
While that Commissar thing may not be all that nice, you could justify it that battle intelligence shows that particular WE to be a Command-and-control vehicle and as such a priority target.  The signal gets sent up (literally) and translates into a hit. A couple weeks ago I 'sniped' one of three SHTs that were spaced 10cm apart. The shot destroyed the middle SHT and the formation was now out of coherency.  Was that me being beardy or clever?  I would argue the latter. Ex. You have a Shadowsword and a formation of SHTs in front of you.  A move in one direction places puts a regular SHT in the front, in a sense setting it up for the first hit.  But a move in another direction makes the commissar-held SHT up front.  You do the latter and fire, killing the commissar.  Is that beardy?  No. If you have two gargants and one has a Supreme Commander and the other doesn't; if a player fires a Deathstrike at the Supreme Commander Gargant, is that beardy?  No. This is simply a rules mechanic and it isn't even gray; there isn't an English speaking person that can successfully argue the RAW means "formation".  We're not talking about aircraft sniping where the intention was clearly never to allow aircraft to target specific units.  The pin-point rule calls for it explicitly.  With (non-Tau   ) spacecraft being an iffy purchase to begin with, I can't imagine this being overpowered at all. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|