Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wraithbrood

Some clarification; Particle accelerators and Drone launcher

Recommended Posts

Hellllo CoA forum,

 

At my FLGS we have a new player with a new CoA fleet. Having never used drones or had any idea about them when we started playing it's been a lot of backwards and forwards to the rule book, and there's a few points I cant seem to clarify.

 

1st; Do particle cannons hit drones? I'm sure I remember reading though a thread on here about it in the past but after 30 minutes of searching I couldn't find it! a link to the thread if it exists would be greatly appreciated.

 

2nd; Can you launch drones from the wave lurking height band? I couldn't find rules or submersible carriers or carriers launching drones from obscured or stratospheric height bands? again apologies if its been covered but couldn't find it.

 

I'm sure there was more but if so i'll just come back search and if I cant find i'll ask :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drones are treated just like SAS in almost all ways.  The only real difference seems to be when they are ditched and how their carriers work.

 

As for being hit by a Particle Accelerator, as long as they are in the right height level they should be hit.  The thread you mentioned it was determined (and backed up by an official response) that SAS would be hit by any indiscriminate attacks that would hit where they are.  Since a particle accelerator is an indiscriminate attack, it should hit drones and any other SAS that it happens to go through.  You couldn't target them with the Particle Accelerator, but if it happens to get them, it gets them.

Since SAS only occupy the Flying height level they would only be hit by a Particle Accelerator on that Height Level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't even start this again. You can't shoot SAWs with ordnance. It's not RAW, and it's certaintly not RAI.

 

p.115 Admiral edition "All attacks made by Models (other than SAS) against a Support Aircraft Squadron are called Interception Attacks. These occur when Models or Squadrons of Models engage an enemy Support Aircraft Squadron with their Ack-Ack weaponry during the Model/Squadron's activation."

 

The only type of attack a non-SAW model can make against a SAS is an interception attack. Interception attacks only happen when a model attacks a SAS with Ack-Ack during the model's activation. Interception attacks do not happen when a model fires a particle accelerator, and since all attacks by models against SAS (during the model's activation) are interception attacks, and interception attacks can only be made with Ack-Ack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey hey hey, I wasn't starting nothing :P I said if you can link me the original thread please do!!!!  hahaha I just couldn't find it!

 

Also, The Coeus special rule that allows it to target something in the aerial height band with its partical accelerator. would that allow it to do so at RB1 or is it RB2+ like most other (P) and (S) weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for starters, the PA on the Coeus is a tertiary weapon. Second of all, that Rearing Expulsion rule states "Nominate one model within the flying height band" which would seem to mean that we can indeed target them within range band one. Which does make sense, given that it's essentially rearing its head directly upwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for starters, the PA on the Coeus is a tertiary weapon. Second of all, that Rearing Expulsion rule states "Nominate one model within the flying height band" which would seem to mean that we can indeed target them within range band one. Which does make sense, given that it's essentially rearing its head directly upwards.

Well, for starters?? I Admit I only checked out the stats on Battlescribe which is where the inaccuracy came from in relation to the tertiary weapon.

But moving on from the to that seems incredibly strong and I must admit the more I look into it the more powerful this thing get's. For the points with the SAW upgrade it feels almost unstoppable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://community.spartangames.co.uk/index.php?/topic/16502-mag-explosion-and-saws/page-4

Not sure how to do links with my phone. Neil from Spartan answered in an email that someone sent that SAS are hit by indiscriminate attacks. It just happens that there are very few indiscriminate attacks that hit the flying level so doesn't come up much.

The key is that you can't target them directly, only AA can target them, but if the get caught in the area of an indiscriminate attack they are hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://community.spartangames.co.uk/index.php?/topic/16502-mag-explosion-and-saws/page-4

Not sure how to do links with my phone. Neil from Spartan answered in an email that someone sent that SAS are hit by indiscriminate attacks. It just happens that there are very few indiscriminate attacks that hit the flying level so doesn't come up much.

The key is that you can't target them directly, only AA can target them, but if the get caught in the area of an indiscriminate attack they are hit.

Thank you very much for a link! I'll read through and check it out but your a super star!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just curious, has anyone actually tried playing SAS and Indiscriminate attacks working against it??

 

It's not nearly as broken, or powerful as you guys keep making it out to be. So far as I know, in my area, it has only happened twice, and one of those occasions was at a tournament and no one there had a problem with it. In fact they all thought it made sense.

 

 

(I'm not here to argue for it. I'm just asking a simple question)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol not this again...all we need now is merlin for 3 more pages of rubbish :P

Thyphs I laughed so hard at this that my class was like: "teach what you laughing at?" You made my day sir!

 

And just it is broken to be honest, I did it once for fun but my Euclid PA slaughtered just wing after wing after wing! It is to powerful and it is AGAINST the rules ;)

And now quit debating about this, my 12-13 year old class has the same debates and they are annoying but they are 12-13 not "(young) adults" who have a rule issue. James and Derek are (2 of the 3) Primary Writers so they know and made the rules! Not to make an offensive assault towards Neil but he is noted stated in the rule writing process so James and Derek overrule him in this case. NOW WE ARE DONE, GO CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS! HAVE FUN AND DONT LET THIS ESCALATE AGAIN.

 

Thanks you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND DONT LET THIS ESCALATE AGAIN.

 

That's a bit of an hostile reaction I'd say. I found the hostile reactions to what I see as an honest rules enquiry to be troublesome.

 

The way I see it, it's about two separate issues here. One issue is the manner in which the rules issue was resolved (the conduct between people), the other issue is the rules themselves.

 

On the topic of the rules themselves, there's some miscommunication on SAS not being targetted by anything but Ack-Ack and indiscriminate fire distinctly not targetting anything at all. There's something for it to be said that it wouldn't be Rules As Intended, but if we're going down this path, it would be sufficient to say this. If we're trying to prove it by quoting the rulebook word for word, then we're going to run into the issues as worded by Merlin. If we're going to appeal to authority on this, I would say that either the authority explains that it wasn't intended (which to my knowledge hasn't been said yet), or that it was an oversight and that the rulebook will be updated in the future. Also, figures of authority are not infallible and are entitled to make mistakes as much as anyone else. This isn't an issue of itself, but it becomes an issue when the figure of authority is held as infallible.

 

On the conduct of people: one's arguments hold more sway when they refrain from belittling or antagonising their counterparts. It's one thing to argue based on one's interpretation of rules, it's another to launch personal attacks or belittle one's point of view by comparing it unfavourably. The purpose of discourse normally is to resolve a quandary or to come closer to understanding one another's point of view, not to have a "winner" and a "loser". Much like when meeting an opponent on the table, I can only win a match if I'm prepared to lose.

 

Sorry for going somewhat off-topic there. I felt it was important to note these points though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not hostile, it is telling people to just stop with this endless discussion, no one here likes it directly. And sometimes you have to be "hostile" to make sure people get it. no is into another discussion about it. And then prevention is better then healing. I teach 13 year olds. I'm almost a 100% of my time "hostile" to make them understand stuff with 13 year olds or with people who are fighting an endless discussion where no one can accept onfe's other opinion and that should stop. I also have that with colleagues who are also not accepting something until you tell them stuff on a more "hostile" way, so that is the best way. So yeah don't let is escalate again because it is useless and frustrating for people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest: most if not all of the arguments for or against the matter have already been made in another thread.

 

Normally I would welcome rational discourse, however in this case I would have to agree with Projectmanhatten5 that a repeat discussion would seem counterproductive. Given the fact that in the other thread things got rather heated, this would not be advised.

 

I would also like to make a point on something. I myself have also written and published a miniature game and it is extremely difficult to write the rules in such a way as to be:

a.) Clearly understandable

b.) Not able to be interpreted in multiple ways (without resorting to "legal speak" which is very hard to understand)

 

Therefore whenever you're asking a question and one of the game designers answers, it would at least be polite to accept his word on it.

If there are issues which you can't match to the answer you got, you can simply ask that in a polite manner as well: "You stated X, however rule such and such seems to indicate Y. Was that an oversite? Is it intended to be interpreted differently? etc."

That is quite less abbrasive than stating that the game designer got the ruling wrong.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not hostile, it is telling people to just stop with this endless discussion

 

I'm sorry I misunderstood it, but that was the impression it gave me. Also, I doubt that this is a discussion not worth waging if conducted in a civil manner.

 

 

no one here likes it directly

 

 

Actually, I'm enjoying this. A healthy debate invigorates the mind!

 

 

And sometimes you have to be "hostile" to make sure people get it

 

 

You seem to be contradicting your own point here: "It is not hostile".

 

I teach 13 year olds.

 

I would argue that the position of a teacher versus pupils is different from that of a poster on a forum where people are peers, though both provide valuable experience.

 

or with people who are fighting an endless discussion where no one can accept onfe's other opinion and that should stop

 

We're definately in agreement here. If you're entering a discussion and are not prepared to change your opinion, you're not actively contributing to the discussion. 

 

 

Let's be honest: most if not all of the arguments for or against the matter have already been made in another thread.

 
Agreed. I'm sorry if I came across as though I wanted to rehash that discussion, because indeed most arguments have been made. I intended to bring attention to the conduct in which discussions are held, because I feel there's a lot of room for improvement there. The issue at hand can be separated into two parts: the rules and the manner in which the discussion was held. I agree that we can leave the rules-part of the discussion out of this.
 

I would also like to make a point on something. I myself have also written and published a miniature game and it is extremely difficult to write the rules in such a way as to be:

a.) Clearly understandable

b.) Not able to be interpreted in multiple ways (without resorting to "legal speak" which is very hard to understand)

 

Therefore whenever you're asking a question and one of the game designers answers, it would at least be polite to accept his word on it.

If there are issues which you can't match to the answer you got, you can simply ask that in a polite manner as well: "You stated X, however rule such and such seems to indicate Y. Was that an oversite? Is it intended to be interpreted differently? etc."

That is quite less abbrasive than stating that the game designer got the ruling wrong.

 

Cheers,

 

 

This is a point worth making, and I agree. However, I'd like to add that a game designer might not've taken things into account or provided ample reasoning, and that's it's perfectly valid to ask for a second opinion. Compare it to a doctor's visit. If I went to the doctor and got a diagnosis that sounded somewhat off or if the argumentation is not very solid, I'd get a second opinion from another doctor. I'll agree that most statements on that thread from the third page onwards or so (not merely the original poster's) could've been worded a bit nicer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to redirect everyone's attention. Here's another question!

Is it true that the printed rulebook is wrong is stating that the particle accelator uses the teleport template (from memory: 3 inch), and it should be the 2 inch template from area bombartment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've checked the digital and Commodore editions of the rulebook, and both seemed to point to the Energy template being used. I'm unable to find any evidence for the 2" template for Particle Accelerator use, as much as it pains my fragile Prussian ships!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't seems like it. I guess it was in an old version of the DigiAdmiral. In the latest one it is the normal energy template (page 67 from memory). I could not find anything about the other template. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the tournament in Eindhoven Falconer showed us the ruling that it should use the smaller template. I saw it with my own eyes in the DigiAdmiral! However when we checked it some time later we could not find it anymore, so that caused some confusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.