|
|
Post by bloodangellh on Aug 24, 2006 1:51:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by heatseeker on Aug 24, 2006 10:37:06 GMT -6
damn Caleb and I thought that carnifexes can be taken out with 1 wraith cannon shot, but i guess not. oh well it'll still go down easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bloodangellh on Sept 29, 2006 18:57:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 29, 2006 19:28:34 GMT -6
Freakin' finally. Oh! My plasma cannons hopes have been answered!!! AAHAHAHA!!! One wound kills two bases, huzzah!
I don't find any sketchy answers Luong...although I didn't read the really long ones that didn't pertain to my games.
|
|
|
|
Post by bloodangellh on Sept 29, 2006 20:39:34 GMT -6
What I meant was some of the answers didn't completly answer the question. I am glad that they did admit a few times, "Our rule was badely worded, this is what it should be"
I also don't like how they made it so you measure distance from the muzzle again, even though they have been saying to interperate the "rules as written". (It is clearly written, even they admitted it, in the Rule book that you measure from the hull) Now you're penalized for having your guns set back a bit, and i'm sure some jerks out there will extend their barrels just for that extra inch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 29, 2006 21:35:26 GMT -6
Probably, but I doubt that'll happen in the club. Honestly I've always measured from the muzzels, even if set back a little. You shouldn't have to worry too much, because most vehicle weaponry is 36" or more, meaning it will always be in range anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by bloodangellh on Sept 30, 2006 0:02:57 GMT -6
I completly understand what you mean andrew, but I would feel for the guys who's devastator squad is being shot by a tank 49 inches away with a lascannon and not being able to return fire. That's compeltly stupid in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2006 0:16:17 GMT -6
Yes very. I should think that if one weapon is in range, it should be assumed that the same weapon pointing the other way is in range. Very, very unscrupulous bastards would be trying to pull off otherwise. I can see mega-battles becoming an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by heatseeker on Sept 30, 2006 1:23:36 GMT -6
most of the stuff we already knew. there were a few rules that were ambiguous and they cleared up like an ind. character in a transport cannot use psychic hood or anything else unless it's something shooty as it can use a hatch to fire through as well as the whole where do you measure to and from. I like the walker rules though: from the tip of the base ;D.
|
|
|
|
Post by bloodangellh on Sept 30, 2006 2:01:56 GMT -6
that's how walkers haev always been, they are provided with bases, that's what you measure from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2006 8:08:00 GMT -6
True...but before the faq, nothing was specified. Nothing was written about where to measure from...apparently it was assumed. Way to go, gaming company. Dreadnoughts still draw los from the weapon mounting itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by heatseeker on Sept 30, 2006 10:26:01 GMT -6
i dont think so. a dreadnought is a walker so therefore measures distance from base is what they're saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by vicmohammad on Sept 30, 2006 12:14:55 GMT -6
Huh, so ordnance can now scatter out of LOS. That may change aiming strategy a bit, now knowing that your blast could conceivably scatter and hit a much more worthwile enemy unit that otherwise would be unable to be targeted.
|
|
|
|
Post by heatseeker on Sept 30, 2006 13:47:16 GMT -6
i thought that was how it always was as you shoot and then scatter and what's ever under the template is hit regardless of where they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 30, 2006 14:35:36 GMT -6
Right, that ended up how it always has been, it's just it wasn't worded well in the original book. Ordnance can be much happier than usual! And yes Matt, you always trace los from the actual weapons mounted on vehicles. A walker is no exception.
|
|
