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

Stupid Interpretive Rule Question - AV Cover
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=17824		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Stupid Interpretive Rule Question - AV Cover
In answering a friend's question, something weird with regard the rules became apparent.

An Assault Marine formation engages an IG Artillery Squadron. All Assault Marines get into base contact.

Now, an IG formation wants to Overwatch. Rules as written, they receive a -1 modifier to hit, because the Assault Marines are in base contact with an armored vehicle (1.8.4).

I can see arguments for it, and arguments against it. And arguments situationally. FAQ and Errata don't seem to help. So it seems to come down to an interpretive issue. While both opinions can be correct, only one ruling can.

So, does a unit moving into base contact with an enemy AV get the benefits of 1.8.4 (Armored Vehicles) against Overwatch Fire?
a) Yes, the vehicles provide some measure of protection, regardless.
b) No, only friendly vehicles work with the infantry to maintain the bonus.
c) Maybe, depending on if the overwatcher is the target (no) or not (yes).
d) Something else.

Morgan Vening
Author:  Dave [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Stupid Interpretive Rule Question - AV Cover
Overwatch can be at any point along a move, so no -1.
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Stupid Interpretive Rule Question - AV Cover
Quote: (Dave @ Feb. 01 2010, 19:41 )

Overwatch can be at any point along a move, so no -1.

Actually, no it can't.

"A formation that is on overwatch may choose to shoot immediately after an enemy formation completes a move..."

Morgan Vening
Author:  Chroma [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Stupid Interpretive Rule Question - AV Cover
Quote: (Dave @ Feb. 01 2010, 19:41 )

Overwatch can be at any point along a move, so no -1.

Actually, overwatch only occurs at the *end* of a move, so, technically, they could be in base contact before the shooting begins.

Units engaging into cover get a cover modifier (and save) if shot at via overwatch before the assualt, so why would this be different?  I can see it as representing the need for the shooters to be careful in not causing any friendly fire casualties so they have to shoot cautiously and the enemy swirling around their comrades.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Stupid Interpretive Rule Question - AV Cover
That's a good question.  I know it's been discussed but I can't recall a decision.

I'm inclined to say they would have -1 unless it was the target taking the OW shot.  After all, it would be hard to avoid friendly fire casualties.

If it had been me, I likely would have dropped the Thawk in between the target and the OW formation to block line of sight.

They could always fire at the Thawk and not have to worry about cover.
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Stupid Interpretive Rule Question - AV Cover
Quote: (Chroma @ Feb. 01 2010, 19:45 )

Units engaging into cover get a cover modifier (and save) if shot at via overwatch before the assualt, so why would this be different?  I can see it as representing the need for the shooters to be careful in not causing any friendly fire casualties so they have to shoot cautiously and the enemy swirling around their comrades.

Which opens up the ironic* situation where if Orks engage an enemy formation that is in cover on Overwatch, the Orks get the cover save from the Overwatch, but not in the assault. Even though they aren't actually moving between the two instances.

Morgan Vening
Author:  Chroma [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Stupid Interpretive Rule Question - AV Cover
Quote: (Morgan Vening @ Feb. 01 2010, 19:51 )

Which opens up the ironic* situation where if Orks engage an enemy formation that is in cover on Overwatch, the Orks get the cover save from the Overwatch, but not in the assault. Even though they aren't actually moving between the two instances.

I don't know if that's "ironic", it's just showing the granularity of being a game and not 'real life'.

The Orks *are* moving, and the enemy is blazing away at them as they approach, and are fully exposed as they "hit" the enemy, but the game rules have the need to compartmentalize those events as discreet phases of play for ease of play.

Real life is messy.   :whistle:
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Stupid Interpretive Rule Question - AV Cover
Quote: (Chroma @ Feb. 01 2010, 19:56 )

I don't know if that's "ironic", it's just showing the granularity of being a game and not 'real life'.

Yeah, I forgot to append to the *. I meant quirksome more than ironic.

Morgan Vening
Author:  Chroma [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Stupid Interpretive Rule Question - AV Cover
Quote: (Morgan Vening @ Feb. 01 2010, 20:01 )

Yeah, I forgot to append to the *. I meant quirksome more than ironic.

Oh, it's definitely quirksome!   :laugh:
Author:  Blish [ Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:32 am ]
Post subject:  Stupid Interpretive Rule Question - AV Cover
Quote: (Morgan Vening @ Feb. 01 2010, 19:37 )

In answering a friend's question, something weird with regard the rules became apparent.

An Assault Marine formation engages an IG Artillery Squadron. All Assault Marines get into base contact.

Now, an IG formation wants to Overwatch. Rules as written, they receive a -1 modifier to hit, because the Assault Marines are in base contact with an armored vehicle (1.8.4).

I can see arguments for it, and arguments against it. And arguments situationally. FAQ and Errata don't seem to help. So it seems to come down to an interpretive issue. While both opinions can be correct, only one ruling can.

So, does a unit moving into base contact with an enemy AV get the benefits of 1.8.4 (Armored Vehicles) against Overwatch Fire?
a) Yes, the vehicles provide some measure of protection, regardless.
b) No, only friendly vehicles work with the infantry to maintain the bonus.
c) Maybe, depending on if the overwatcher is the target (no) or not (yes).
d) Something else.

Morgan Vening

I would go with b only.

:blues:
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/