Bienvenue visiteur, pour poster sur ce forum vous devez vous enregistrer.
Flux RSS MembresRecherche
Pages : 1 2 3 4
Aircraft Mechanics?
Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [24/01/2019] à 21:14

Quote from Nostradunwhich on [24/01/2019] à 19:41

That looks to me like the bomb is hitting the top of the tank.


Yep, dive bombers hit the top of the tank. This picture was just to show my point of airplanes flying high and coming in for an attack, nothing more.

Couldn't find the same type of picture for a strafing attack.


Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 06:48

Quote from Nostradunwhich on [24/01/2019] à 19:41


Quote from Eclo on [24/01/2019] à 09:44

The dive and attack happens when the airplanes order token is activated.

(picture is a Stuka diving run)



That looks to me like the bomb is hitting the top of the tank.


Edit to add: Is that inverse loop really how a Stuka attacks? I always figured they just started high, and as they approached the target just dove and released the bomb. The inverted loop seems needlessly complicated.



I would also like to know this 😐


On topic: I imagine anyone firing at the aircraft would be at long range because aircrafts move fast and high above ground and are very hard to hit. The minus 2 penalty to hit it makes sense based on it's alltitude and manuverability. The aircraft itself not getting this penalty when it attacks makes sense also as it's attacking from a dominant position and it can place itself accordingly to get a good shot.


Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 07:05

Quote from Nostradunwhich on [24/01/2019] à 19:40

You should never justify anything based on what the rules do not restrict you from doing. The rules don't specifically exclude you from simply declaring "I automatically win because it is Thursday".


You are making it sound like I just make up rules and stuff.


I only applied an existing rule to a situation that is not clear from reading the rules and my take on this unclear situation is not contradicted by the rules. Therefore it is not illegal to apply the bonus.

Whether my solution is correct is another thing but until we receive an official ruling about this both options are valid.


Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 11:02

Quote from Eclo on [25/01/2019] à 07:05

I only applied an existing rule to a situation that is not clear from reading the rules and my take on this unclear situation is not contradicted by the rules. Therefore it is not illegal to apply the bonus.

Whether my solution is correct is another thing but until we receive an official ruling about this both options are valid.


Sorry if I came across as too critical of your point, but I do think you were making something up. Let me see if I can explain why. Your proposed application of mechanics requires LoS to cross the rear of the HV. But Aircraft are not on the board so how can you draw LoS from any particular direction?


The rules specifically allow an Aircraft to shoot, but they do not state you place the aircraft on the board and then shoot. Conditional modifiers based on the placement of a unit (in order to fire from a specific direction) cannot apply to a unit that is not on the board.


Aircraft firing at units is in the RAW, but nothing about placing them in a specific spot, in fact the opposite is true — the rules state they are NOT on the board. So I am sorry but I do not agree that both opinions are equally valid.


Now DPG can certainly add detail to the current mechanics to allow the aircraft to choose its position, but it would turn a situational modifier (you have to get your units into position behind the HV) to an "always on" bonus where no matter how careful the opponent is, you can always gain the "Read Attack" bonus as long as you paid the points for an Aircraft. I don't think that is a good idea and I don't think it is fair for your opponent.


Volunteer Moderator of the English Language Forums
Remember: If you are not willing to shell your own position you are not willing to win!

Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 11:12

You can park your tanks rear against the map edge or house wall or another vehicle and thus making sure NOBODY can get a rear shot against your tank.


If the arcraft has the proposed "always rear shots, every time" special ability on, it would still attack the rear of that tank. That is a pretty powerful ability.


Is this ability reflected on the cost of the plane?


This is supposed to be a joyful occasion. Lets not bicker and argue about who killed who.

Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 13:33

Quote from Nostradunwhich on [25/01/2019] à 11:02

Sorry if I came across as too critical of your point, but I do think you were making something up. Let me see if I can explain why. Your proposed application of mechanics requires LoS to cross the rear of the HV. But Aircraft are not on the board so how can you draw LoS from any particular direction?


The rules specifically allow an Aircraft to shoot, but they do not state you place the aircraft on the board and then shoot. Conditional modifiers based on the placement of a unit (in order to fire from a specific direction) cannot apply to a unit that is not on the board.


Aircraft firing at units is in the RAW, but nothing about placing them in a specific spot, in fact the opposite is true — the rules state they are NOT on the board. So I am sorry but I do not agree that both opinions are equally valid.


Now DPG can certainly add detail to the current mechanics to allow the aircraft to choose its position, but it would turn a situational modifier (you have to get your units into position behind the HV) to an "always on" bonus where no matter how careful the opponent is, you can always gain the "Read Attack" bonus as long as you paid the points for an Aircraft. I don't think that is a good idea and I don't think it is fair for your opponent.


I only use the rule from the book -> 'They always have Clear LoS to every Unit except those that are inside building' So the rules themselves talk about LoS, it's nothing I made up. And for me that means Clear LoS to the backside of HV's as well.


You say exactly the same, only you shoot at the front or side of a vehicle.


To be very, very clear : I don't WANT that bonus to apply, I only want an official ruling about it. With or without bonus I will continue to enjoy this game. I only advocate that the bonus CAN apply to any aircraft.


Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 14:01

@Eclo,


If you do not want to use the +2 rear shot rule in your games, why insist on it?


Why not play "the Aircraft shoots normally, no bonus or penalty" UNTIL DPG gives us more defined Aircraft rules?


The "always rear shot +2 to hit" rule is something you are ADDING to aircrafts abilities with no regard to the cost of the aircraft.


I am also adding to Aircrafts abilities with my "always long range -2 to hit" ruling, but at least that rule works both ways (both the aircraft and the ground units are firing at Long range). I also tried to base the rule to the existing range rules.


But this is how I will play the aircraft until actual rules are published by DPG:


– Aircraft are always considered to be at Long range (both when attacking and when they are attacked).

– Aircraft disregard directional bonuses/penalties when firing at Heavy vehicles (in case of HoN, they always shoot at side armour of Heavy vehicle)


These are by definition Home Rules. The ball is in DPGs court now to provide me more accurate rules.


This is supposed to be a joyful occasion. Lets not bicker and argue about who killed who.

Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 14:15

The HoN V1 rules state that if a tank is struck by indirect fire you are to use the lateral armor rating. I know that this rule is meant cover artillery barrages and mortar attacks but I believe that it could also apply to attacks by aircraft. It's a compromise; neither the strongest nor the weakest ratings are used and it eliminates any debate about the direction in which the attacking aircraft is traveling. Other games, such as Bolt Action, specify that aircraft and artillery hits against heavy vehicles are always applied against the top armor but since HoN, HoBR, etc. do not give us a top armor rating I think the middle ground should apply-the lateral armor rating … That is until someone from DPG steps in and clears this up.


Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 14:15

Quote from Colhammer on [25/01/2019] à 14:01

If you do not want to use the +2 rear shot rule in your games, why insist on it?


OK, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I intended, my bad 😳


I don't mean I never want to use that rule in my game… I only meant it doesn't matter which the official ruling will be, I will be happy one way or the other.


I still think granting the bonus is the logical thing for aircraft, though.


Quote from Colhammer on [25/01/2019] à 14:01

Why not play "the Aircraft shoots normally, no bonus or penalty" UNTIL DPG gives us more defined Aircraft rules?


The "always rear shot +2 to hit" rule is something you are ADDING to aircrafts abilities with no regard to the cost of the aircraft.


Perhaps the cost is already taken into account. Who can say ?? (DPG can 😉 )


Quote from Colhammer on [25/01/2019] à 14:01

The ball is in DPGs court now to provide me more accurate rules.


Yep, fully agree


Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 14:17

But, hey, don't let me interrupt you guys. You keep slugging this out. It's been an entertaining read.


Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 14:42

I think this thread is more or less over until DPG can give us official input.


We are running in circles here.


But glad we could provide you some entertainment! 😆


And Eclo, I might have answered your posts more harshly than I meant. If I came across as rude, I apologise. I was just trying to be presice in my reasoning. Did not mean to belittle your opinion.


This is supposed to be a joyful occasion. Lets not bicker and argue about who killed who.

Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 14:47

@Colhammer


I found a solution…


https://www.random.org/dice/?num=1


Roll a d6. Odds we use the +2, Even we don't.


Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 15:59

I have to say I have found this thread quite an interesting read. Now I am just waiting to see what DPGs call is.


Thanks for spelling out your different points of view though. Helped me decide which way I would call it lacking an official answer. :mrgreen:


Member of the « Cult of the Inexisting New » – Thanks bartdevuyst

Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [25/01/2019] à 18:52

I really enjoyed the debate. Things don't usually get this spirited on the forum… except, perhaps when someone proposes opportunity fire in the Supply Phase. Fisticuffs, anyone?


Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [26/01/2019] à 01:34

Quote from Eclo on [25/01/2019] à 13:33

You say exactly the same, only you shoot at the front or side of a vehicle.


Actually no, that is not my point. I already pointed out they can see things on all sides of the HV and shoot at any one of them. Since an HV blocks LoS they cannot be on ANY side of the vehicle.


They have rules that give them Clear LoS to ALL units on the board, but require them to be "off board" at the same time; therefore they cannot be at any particular position on the board. The logical direction is above the units — that sort of LoS factor is similar to the mechanics for Dominant/Higher Position, which is related to height.


Ok. As has been pointed out we are going around in circles, so this is my last post. I already asked DPG to take a look at this thread, but they are pretty busy atm cleaning out the office, so no guess when they might have time to give this a look.


And I hope it was taken just as a spirited debate. No hard feelings from my side, Eclo. It was a fun debate 🙂


Volunteer Moderator of the English Language Forums
Remember: If you are not willing to shell your own position you are not willing to win!

Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [26/01/2019] à 01:34

Quote from jyonkers on [25/01/2019] à 18:52

I really enjoyed the debate. Things don't usually get this spirited on the forum… except, perhaps when someone proposes opportunity fire in the Supply Phase.


Heh. Kudos on the jab 🙂


Volunteer Moderator of the English Language Forums
Remember: If you are not willing to shell your own position you are not willing to win!

Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [26/01/2019] à 01:37

Quote from jyonkers on [25/01/2019] à 14:15

The HoN V1 rules state that if a tank is struck by indirect fire you are to use the lateral armor rating. I know that this rule is meant cover artillery barrages and mortar attacks but I believe that it could also apply to attacks by aircraft.


That is a good point. Hmmm… That should apply for bombs, I would think.


Volunteer Moderator of the English Language Forums
Remember: If you are not willing to shell your own position you are not willing to win!

Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [26/01/2019] à 02:56

Quote from Nostradunwhich on [26/01/2019] à 01:34I already asked DPG to take a look at this thread, but they are pretty busy atm cleaning out the office, so no guess when they might have time to give this a look.


I imagine they are quite busy. I admit after seeing the one post I wished I lived in Paris just to go see what fun I could get into picking up some HoN/SoN terrain boards. LOL


Well I wish them the best. I hope they can find a path that allows them the best of success.


Member of the « Cult of the Inexisting New » – Thanks bartdevuyst

Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [26/01/2019] à 12:33

Spirited discussions are a good thing. 🙂


So, no "sorries" are needed, it stayed civilized.


Okay… one more attempt to provide bartdevuyst with an answer.


In HoN heavy vehicles have a front, side and rear armour value. So I took my HoN v1 and looked at the aircraft cards. On each card with the 3 shooting values (vs. Inf, Light Vehicles and Heavy Vehicles) there is a little rule saying to always use the side armour for this attack. Without regard for any obstacles, LoS and other rules (Except on the P38 card 🙄 )


Because HoBR ony has a single armour value for Heavy Vehicles I think it is safe to say that DPG just forgot that extra bonus rule for rear shots when designing the aircraft and their rules.


So to keep in line with HoN perhaps we should all use the side armour (which is for HoBR the regular armour value) ?


PS I have not changed my mind, still think the rear bonus can apply to aircraft attacks just the same like HoN aircraft always shoot at the side armour. The idea behind that is probably that the top armour is lighter than the front armour. Perhaps HoBR top armour is also lighter than the front/side armour ?


Attacking from the rear (Heavy Vehicles) & Airplanes posté le [01/02/2019] à 20:10

I got a ruling from Clem. Aircraft always attack the top of a unit, and so do not get a bonus for attacking the rear of a Heavy Vehicle.


And before you ask, I asked what to do in the case of Aircraft in HoN, when vehicles can have different armor values. Good to cover that before the HoN Comp. Ed. gets printed so thanks to Eclo and jyonkers for bringing it up!


Volunteer Moderator of the English Language Forums
Remember: If you are not willing to shell your own position you are not willing to win!

Pages : 1 2 3 4