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.

Austragalis wrote:Doesn't "abusing" a rule also include exploiting it as far as you can?

Sure. but 'exploiting' a rule means pushing it in directions it's not meant to go.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with placing your models at the limits of their coherency, any more than it's wrong to move your models a full 6".

Many players resent it when you take too much time to make sure all your models are spaced as far as you can get them, or when you take forever making sure a model is behind cover just so, or what have you.

Sure. It's also annoying when players take too long to decide which unit to move or shoot with, or when they wander off while they're supposed to be having their turn.

But none of those things involve exploiting the rules.


Keeping your models at max coherency also doesn't actually have to take a long time... One of my regular opponents back in 2nd and 3rd edition used to carry a piece of blister foam that was 2" across. As he was moving his units, he would just slip the blister foam in between each model to check coherency. I've seen similar things done with pieces of sprue, or the edge of a tape measure. If your opponent is taking too long, they're not exploiting the rules... they're just taking too long.

Alright, insaniak, that all sounds fair and good to me.

Austragalis wrote:Doesn't "abusing" a rule also include exploiting it as far as you can? Many players resent it when you take too much time to make sure all your models are spaced as far as you can get them, or when you take forever making sure a model is behind cover just so, or what have you.

Yes, and if a guy spends five minutes moving each ork boyz unit to make sure they're all exactly 2" apart then he's being a jerk, and the two of you will likely have a boring game. It's a value judgement as to how long someone can spend making sure a unit is properly spaced.

Your proposed change to the blast rules doesn't correct that problem, it just allows the attacker to spend as long investigating every possible placement of the blast marker to score as many hits as possible. Which could be just as boring, if he was obnoxious about things.

sebster wrote:

Austragalis wrote:Doesn't "abusing" a rule also include exploiting it as far as you can? Many players resent it when you take too much time to make sure all your models are spaced as far as you can get them, or when you take forever making sure a model is behind cover just so, or what have you.

Yes, and if a guy spends five minutes moving each ork boyz unit to make sure they're all exactly 2" apart then he's being a jerk, and the two of you will likely have a boring game. It's a value judgement as to how long someone can spend making sure a unit is properly spaced.

Your proposed change to the blast rules doesn't correct that problem, it just allows the attacker to spend as long investigating every possible placement of the blast marker to score as many hits as possible. Which could be just as boring, if he was obnoxious about things.

Hmm, good point. This rule just allows for more bullcrap. Potentially. So that rule sounds pretty pointless, too, when you put it that way.

So let's see:

First rule concerning Rapid Fire, we've decided that RAW is best.

Second rule, we've decided that elevated positions already confer benefits (improved LOS, cover bonus) so RAW is also best there.

We've decided that "blind fire" is already covered in the go-to-ground rule.

And now it seems that "firing at the ground" is a useless rule, too.

Does that sound right???

Well, this thread has been very helpful. I got exactly what I wanted. Thanks, Dakka

I rely on my Harlequin 'veil of tears' extensively, which does not allow them to be targetted. HouseRule #3 would make them complete frag missile-bait because you aren't shooting at them, just near them, hoping for scatter. That is way to expensive a squad to lose its only form of defense to something so simple so I say NO WAY. This game isn't meant to be realistic (we don't just take turns moving and shooting at each other in real life and that says it all).

Regarding rapid fire and assault? Heck no man! That just makes Marines with their stupid bolters even cooler PFP than they already are... at least leave us Xenos with our crap overpriced underpowered stat lines the one advantage we still have. A shuriken catapult is an assault weapon, it is graceful, elegant, lightweight, etc. That means I can move, shoot, and charge. A Bolter is a big clumsy boxy thing with a barrel the size of your fist. Hence you can't. A lasgun is almost as tall as the Guardsman firing it. Not very wieldy up close. Just sayin...

@Austragallis
btw I am shocked by your Avatar. That is funny... either that or you are colorblind that has got to be the worst clashing colors ever devised. I think its awesome.

1) I'm sure the RF troops are firing as they assault... just not effectively. More like suppression fire. WH40K use to have reaction fire where defenders would get shots at assaulters before melee. I'd be more likely to bring back that complicated mess before giving RF units shots. If you want units with assault weapons buy units with assault weapons.


2)

Kevin949 wrote:2. Yes, but you lose accuracy dramatically as the coriolis effect comes into play.

The Coriolis Effect only comes into play in non-inertial reference systems. Perhaps we should worry about orbital mechanics. Tidal forces? Air resistance at various barometric pressures? But I assume you were being sarcastic in the first place

In_Theory's post brought up some good points but his physics is a little wrong. In the interest of Simplicity over Realism, I'd leave the rule as is but I'll put a little thought experiment as an aside.
Pretend there are shooters at the top & base of a tower. Horizontal distance is ~0. A simple kinetic projectile traveling straight down is going to be sped up by gravity and slowed by Air Resistance. A simple kinetic projectile traveling straight up is going to be slowed by both gravity and Air Resistance. The skp fired from the higher elevation is going to stay at an effective speed for a greater distance than the one fired from below.

But keep in mind that projectile velocity isn't the only factor to determine effective range as other posters have pointed out.
BTW: Most people are used to shooting at something at the same level. Shooting at something at different level changes the shape of the ballistic path relative to the straight-line path between shooter and target. This will tend to make the shooter aim high or low.

3)

Scott-S6 wrote:With your rule as it stands there's nothing stopping you from targetting one unit and then deliberately shooting at another unit. How about changing the rule to be in-line with templates? i.e. must place the blast marker so that it hits the maximum number of models in the target unit.

me likey. No worries about which unit was targeted.

dancingcricket wrote:It let's you circumvent the protection inherent in being a grey knight, stealth suit, harlequin

if the rules for these and similar items don't take into account blast deviation, those rules are broken, not the blast targeting rules.





<edited for formatting & spelling>