| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
|
|
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
2007/05/31 09:10:11
Subject: SMF in CC
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
hey! we were having a game today, and unfortunatly, i got attacked by some assault marines with melta bombs on my falcon. Thing is, we weren't sure if the SMF rule applied in cc, as the rules dont say they do or dont. It could be argued they dont as they are in the shooting section, but well, GW arent really very specific a lot of the time!!!lol.. help???
|
|
|
 |
|
2007/05/31 09:12:53
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Mi.
|
SMF?
|
The only easy day was yesterday. |
|
|
|
|
2007/05/31 09:14:29
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Skimmers Moving Fast
|
|
|
|
|
2007/05/31 09:32:38
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Mi.
|
If the skimmer moved over 6" it should be glancing hits only. Add that to the fact you only hit on 6 unless it sat still or for some reason moved under 6".
|
The only easy day was yesterday. |
|
|
|
|
2007/05/31 11:00:54
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
As per the FAQ, SMF Always applies. Glancing hits only. Also Skimmers may only be hit on a six in close combat, unless they've been immobilised. Sitting still or moving under 6" has no bearing on this.
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
|
2007/05/31 20:09:11
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
|
Skimmers always count as having moved >6" when attacked in close combat (p71). So hitting on 6s and glancing damage only.
|
|
|
|
|
2007/05/31 20:10:09
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
|
Gak, make that "Mobile skimmers" not just "Skimmers."
|
|
|
|
|
2007/05/31 20:51:51
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club
|
Cheexsta,
You are not entirely correct. The skimmer moving fast rule only applies if the skimmer physically moved more than 6" from where it started moving.
So if a Skimmer ends its move 6" or less from where it started (regardless of how far it actually moved) then it can indeed be penetrated by close combat attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007/06/01 00:43:45
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Sslimey Sslyth
|
Posted By Cheexsta on 06/01/2007 1:09 AM
Skimmers always count as having moved >6" when attacked in close combat (p71). So hitting on 6s and glancing damage only.
That's actually a fairly common misinterpretation. The rule on page 71 is referring to what you need to roll to hit the vehicle in close combat. When rolling to hit a skimmer, you treat it as if it were a vehicle that had moved >6" in the previous movement turn, regardless of whether or not it actually moved.
Sal
|
|
|
|
|
2007/06/01 18:33:58
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
|
Yak and Saldiven,
Looking at it again, the paragraph does seem to be referring solely to the table immediately above it. Ignore my post then as it takes that paragraph out of context.
|
|
|
|
|
2007/06/02 00:26:42
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
So, to clarify, in close combat....
A mobile skimmer always counts as moving >6" for trying to hit (thus needing a 6 to hit)
A mobile skimmer that *actually* moved >6" uses SMF, and suffers only glancing hits
An immobilized skimmer is always an auto hit, and can be penetrated
|
|
|
|
|
2007/06/02 03:44:03
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
kk, many thanks!!!
(yay! the falcon is now even harder to kill!!!LOL!!!)
|
|
|
|
|
2007/06/03 03:19:53
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Los Angeles
|
Posted By 01777 on 06/02/2007 8:44 AM
kk, many thanks!!!
(yay! the falcon is now even harder to kill!!!LOL!!!)
That's a good thing?
|
"The last known instance of common sense happened at a GT. A player tried to use the 'common sense' argument vs. Mauleed to justify his turbo-boosted bikes getting a saving throw vs. Psycannons. The player's resulting psychic death scream erased common sense from the minds of 40k players everywhere. " - Ozymandias |
|
|
|
|
2007/06/03 06:55:55
Subject: RE: SMF in CC
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
yes, as it is MY falcon...lol...
i personally feel that AP1 weaps should negate SMF... *edit* Although i am well aware that it doesnt, merely a rles suggestiony thing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
