Aircraft can only fire passive AA when an enemy aircraft stops inside their AA umbrella. A transit isn't good enough...

However, desperately struggling to think up a way to protect my soon-to-be-inbound Thunderhawk from being CAP'd by Andy H's Eldar fighters, I came up with the idea to move some fighters to stop in front of an enemy fighter squadron's entry point on the table in order to passively "CAP a CAP"***. If I ever knew that a transit isn't good enough to activate airborne AA I'd forgotten it, because as quickly pointed out by Dave, it was a nonsense of an idea. :-)



***Actually, I came up with the idea 5 minutes after I'd already activated the Thunderbolt squadron to do something else!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

lol, I'm not a fan of spacecraft on table edges, I tend to knock them off, lol

IIRC it specifically has to be the owning player's table edge too, not just any table edge.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I spent a large part of Sunday afternoon picking up my blitz objective off the floor! Glad my first activation was my spaceship really!

I think you'll find it's actually a pretty marginal difference.

I agree. I've played it both ways, probably in equal measure. Usually I play it the way my opponent plays it and don't argue the toss.
*Sometimes* a commander or 'special' unit dies when otherwise it wouldn't,
As has been pointed out the best way to save important units from barrages is not to put them in the main clump anyway.

Like I say, I'm not actually a fan of the exact method. It's just the way I read the rules. And like any rule I don't like I'm compelled to follow it regardless, especially in a competative game

I prefer the general method, But am most in facour of my ultra general method; where the template doesn't dictate where allocations are made, it only calculates the number of 'attacks'. Simpler and erases all these problems in my opinion.

Quite; I thought keeping random numbers of commissars was unbalanced and inconvinent, but when I play at EUK tournaments I have to follow the rules and roll up a random number of commissars.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'm going to send an email to Jervis and ask for an answer. Does everyone agree that this is an accurate description and (probably) doesn't bias the answer?
=========

One interpretation is that when the rule says “Roll to hit all units” that means you are rolling for each individual unit and a hit is allocated to that particular unit if the die roll succeeds. Basically, that combines the to-hit and the allocation steps into a single roll. Support for this interpretation includes reference to “sniping” with artillery and the restrictions on template placement in order to hinder sniping (which would be unnecessary if there weren’t a side effect of the mechanics which could allow sniping).

The other interpretation is that the template is used for counting up the number of units and types of attacks but the attacks are simply aggregated, rolled and allocated as with the normal shooting process. Support for this interpretation includes the “speed rolling” suggestion implies aggregation and the fact that hit allocation is never mentioned in the barrage rules so there is no reason to think the process should be different than normal shooting.

===

Edit: I think the resolution of any confusion over the speed rolling recommendation can be reached pretty quickly once we have the answer to the above. Either the goal is individual unit treatment like the first interpretation, in which case the "exact type" would mean not just the "type" in terms of AV/LV/INf but to retain as much category breakdown as necessary to closely mimic the individual treatment, or it's aggregated like the second interpretation and inf/LV/AV is sufficient.

Besides, it's a recommendation and the recourse is obvious in the case of disagreement - follow the actual rule.

Thanks Neal,

I think it gives Jervis enough of an idea as to what the point of contention is that he can just say "I meant it this way..." and it'll be settled.

Maybe include a note about how the latter interpretating (if chosen) will need clarification as to whether hits should be assigned only to the units under the template, or from the front of the formation (As would be the case if you're using the standard hit allocation rules)?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

An answer to that question would certainly resolve the issue as far as I'm concerned. Thanks Neal.

lol. jervis will be surprised to hear about this date - six years after the game was published!

I guess everyone assumed it was so elementary to the rule system that it's never really been discussed.

Just my bloody luck to be the one to notice someone else playing it differently.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I have wondered about this issue too. In my games so far I have simply followed my opponents method. Its a good question to resolve.

Might be worth adding a link to this thread in the message to JJ.

The bigger problem for us, isn't resolving a barrage, it's resolving a barrage amongst a batch of fire. While the general interpretation we have is "Everything under the template has a chance to be hit" method, which seems to be the majority interpretation, when it comes to something like resolving a Reaver Prime's fire, the "Just figure out what, and allocate accordingly" system is a lot easier to follow.

I don't have a rulebook with me, but is it clear when determination of MW Barrages happen? Say an Ork Big Gunz formation with a SoopaGun. You get 4 regular shots, and a 2BPMW. The interpretation of that could potentially be heavily varied, if it's not explicitly addressed.

Morgan Vening

MW attacks are resolved after regular shots are fired as per section 2.2.6 Macro-Weapons Allocating Hits.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.