| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| 'Firefight value' http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=20048 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | carlos [ Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | 'Firefight value' |
What exactly is meant by this expression? Just the number required to hit or that number plus any weapons that are marked as (15 cm)? This question is related to skimmers forcing groundpounders to 'use their firefight value'. The FAQ reads: Q: If a Skimmer uses its ability to force units in base-to-base contact with it to use their FF ability are the units considered to be no longer in base-to-base contact? A: No. The ability does not change the status of the units. So even if the Skimmer uses its FF value in the assault the Skimmer and any units that were in base-to-base with it are still considered to be in base-to-base. Now, say a Land Speeder contacted in base-to-base by a terminator who forces the use of their firefighr values. What happens? 1) Termies attack once w/ normal attack at 3+; Land Speeders attack once w/ an MW at 5+ OR 2) Termies attack once w/ a normal attack at 3+ and an MW at 3+; Land Speeders attack once w/ a regular attack not an MW. The use of the word 'status' in the FAQ makes it hard to understand the correct interpretation. Yeah, I know, telescopic power fists, but a lot of the things in the rules are there for balance not for narrative plausibility. |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
It means they can only use FF weapons, so no extra MW attack from their powerfists. |
|
| Author: | Spectrar Ghost [ Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
The units are still considered to be in Base to Base (the status referred to by the FAQ), but they are in all other respects treated as if they were at FF range for the skimmer unit. They could attack the skimmer with their FF stats, or any other units in BtB that were not skimmers with their CC stats. Each unit gets a single attack at it's FF value unless given extra attacks from one of it's small arms weapons. For instance, Guard Infantry get 1x 5+ FF attack. Wraithguard have Wraithcannons that have FF extra attacks (+1), MW; therefore they each get a 4+ FF attack and an additional 4+ MW FF attack. Small arms without extra abilities are mostly there for fluff purposes, however a unit that shoots within 15cm and has small arms can count units that have only small arms for the purposes of suppression. |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
As the others have said, the "CC" and "FF" values normally relate to a single dice roll per unit, unless there are other circumstances (Extra attacks, or War Engines). Normally a unit will only use the "CC" value if it is in B-B with an enemy and the "FF" value if it is within 15 cms and Line of Sight of the enemy. However here the skimmer is regarded to be slightly above the enemy, but otherwise still in B-B. So, for allocation of hits inflicted by the enemy this unit will be among the closest, and hence one of the first to receive hits. Consider two examples where an Eldar Guardian formation in Wave Serpents that assaults some Marine terminators with a Chaplain:-
|
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
carlos wrote: What exactly is meant by this expression? Just the number required to hit or that number plus any weapons that are marked as (15 cm)? Unless noted with special abilities that affect assault, weapons designated as "small arms, (15cm)" are purely for flavor. The unit gets one attack at its basic FF value. Quote: This question is related to skimmers forcing groundpounders to 'use their firefight value'. The FAQ reads: Q: If a Skimmer uses its ability to force units in base-to-base contact with it to use their FF ability are the units considered to be no longer in base-to-base contact? A: No. The ability does not change the status of the units. So even if the Skimmer uses its FF value in the assault the Skimmer and any units that were in base-to-base with it are still considered to be in base-to-base. Now, say a Land Speeder contacted in base-to-base by a terminator who forces the use of their firefighr values. What happens? 1) Termies attack once w/ normal attack at 3+; Land Speeders attack once w/ an MW at 5+ OR 2) Termies attack once w/ a normal attack at 3+ and an MW at 3+; Land Speeders attack once w/ a regular attack not an MW. The use of the word 'status' in the FAQ makes it hard to understand the correct interpretation. Yeah, I know, telescopic power fists, but a lot of the things in the rules are there for balance not for narrative plausibility. Everything uses FF values if the skimmer forces FF. Termies would use a 3+FF attack and the speeder would use a 5+MWFF attack. The distinction between assault attacks (forcing FF) and base-to-base status is necessary because there are restrictions on movement based on being pinned in base contact. A skimmer transport, like a Wave Serpent, could force FF but still be pinned in place and unable to dismount troops because there were 2 enemy units in base contact. |
|
| Author: | spawn [ Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
So how would this work with a WE skimmer. The rules about targeting with WE's state that you can only use CC against units in btb. This obviously will lead to discussions with some people. Are the targeting rules for WE's badly worded in this special case? |
|
| Author: | KriegXXIX [ Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
Note that you don't have to force FF with a skimmer. The downside is that the opposing model can make its CC attacks as well. For example, a Necron Abattoir is a fearsome skimming WE that is designed for CC. The skimming rule allows it to fly over intervening terrain on its engage move (infiltrating no less), and then drag units into BTB. It can then engage in CC or force FF at the choice of the controlling player. I can't envision many scenarios where it would want to forgo its CC attacks since it is at CC2+ with multiple TK close combat attacks. Just something to keep in mind. The other advantage of dragging units into BTB, and then forcing a FF is that you can control where damage is inflicted in engagements since units in BTB always count as the closest model. |
|
| Author: | spawn [ Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
I think I understand what you mean, but let me add this: the rulebook says this about targeting in assault for WEs: "Instead of rolling a single hit dice for each war engine in an assault, roll a number of hit dice equal to the war engine’s starting damage capacity. You may choose to split these between close combat rolls and firefight rolls as you see fit, but close combat rolls will only hit enemy units in base contact, while firefight rolls will only hit units within 15cm that are not in base contact." Now take a humble Eldar super heavy (cobra, void spinner or scorpion) all have a 6cc an 5ff. He gets assaulted by a unit of 6 ork warbikes. (4cc, 6ff). all units are in btb. both have no blast markers. If the eldar opts to firefight (obviously what it is meant to do) he has no chance of scoring a hit in ff and can expect 1 hit, 0,67 wounds in return. result: orks outnumber, one wound: 2 in favor of orks. If he tries cc, the eldar scores 0,5 hit 0,3 kill, the bikes score 3 hits, 2 wounds. orks outnumber, two wounds: 3 in favor of orks. If the ork only gets 3 in CC and 3 in FF: 0,5x3 =1,5 & 0,167 x 3 = 0,5. a total of 2 hits and ~0,44 wound Eldar FF: 1 hit, 0,67kill. Eldar 1 kill, orks outnumber. Draw. I think the wording for targetting with war engines in this case is very harsh. The same can be said for war engine formations (imperial supers, battlefortresses etc.) if the opponent concentrates all attacking units on one unit in the formation, the others are left unable to assist, because the attackers can't be targeted with the firefight, because the are in btb. |
|
| Author: | Ulrik [ Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
Isn't this a case of wargames rule breaking down when read as legal texts? Or maybe the wording can be changed to: "...close combat rolls will only hit enemy units in base contact with the war engine, while firefight rolls will only hit units within 15cm that are not in base contact with the war engine. Skimmers using their ability to force a firefight can still hit units in base contact." I'd almost argue that my added text (in italics) is implied in the base rules anyway. Skimmers are more flexible than other war engines this way, but hey, forcing firefights is supposed to be an advantage. And as Skimmer is a special ability it should supercede the base rules for war engines. A skimming war engine with both assault weapons and small arms wouldn't be able to use the assault weapons if forcing a firefight. |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
As Ulrik mentioned, the Epic rules are not a legal document, and shouldn't be read as such. We all know the correct outcome here is that the skimmer WE can FF against those in base contact, so lets all play it that way whatever the rules say. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
You have a point on the RAW. The basic WE rules don't take into account special abilities like Skimmer (or anything else). They do not make a technical distinction between Base Contact and CC because, in the absence of special rules, they are equivalent. As others have said, though, it's a reasonable extrapolation to decide FF attacks should be able to hit units forced to FF by Skimmer, even though they are in "base contact". |
|
| Author: | spawn [ Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
Cheers everybody for the replies. Your line of reasoning is exactly mine. However, one of my regular opponents is a bit of a RAW player. I'm usually not really bothered by this line of reasoning. If you have a Eldar WE skimmer in CC unsupported, you probably did something wrong anyway. The same could be said for imperial super heavy companies. They are not suited for the "up close and personal" aproach. Thanks again! |
|
| Author: | Ulrik [ Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
Skimmer War Engines are two core rules exceptions interacting with each other, might be worth a FAQ? (Skimmer rules aren't written for war engines, war engine rules aren't written for skimmers.) |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
added |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 'Firefight value' |
spawn wrote: Cheers everybody for the replies. Your line of reasoning is exactly mine. However, one of my regular opponents is a bit of a RAW player. I'm usually not really bothered by this line of reasoning. If you have a Eldar WE skimmer in CC unsupported, you probably did something wrong anyway. The same could be said for imperial super heavy companies. They are not suited for the "up close and personal" aproach. Thanks again! Although it is not written in 'legalese', the relevant bit is underlined Quote: 2.1.13 Skimmers (last para) Skimmers may always choose to use their firefight value in an assault, even if there are enemy units in base contact with the skimmer. If they do this then the enemy must use their firefight value also. This represents the skimmer lifting off the ground out of reach of enemy ground units. The point is that, although there is no horizontal separation there is a *vertical* separation (the rule represents the skimmer flying above the enemy) forcing both sides to use Fire Fight factors. As a direct consequence the skimmer is not deemed to be in B-B with the enemy for the purposes of the assault. It therefore follows that, while a WE skimmer could rise up and then choose to use it's CC factors, under 3.3.2 (Close Combat and Firefight Attacks) it could not apply any hits caused because it is not deemed to be in B-B. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|