EDIT: I think the rules for Spec Firing grenades are quite confusing if you try to apply real-life logic to the game (which I think applies to most in-game situations), and I am interested in knowing how many people are (or were recently) still playing the game thinking that Spec Firing grenades use parabolic trajectory. ######### As far as I know, in N3 grenades kinda work like Guided ammunition if you launch them via Speculative Fire. That means you can grenade any target that is within Maximum range of the grenade weapon (Grenades or any form of Grenade Launcher), provided there is a way to trace the grenade's trajectory. Now, I would like to know does this still apply in this extreme case. Blue wants to lob a Grenade using Speculative Fire in order to hit Green. As you can see (I hope you can forgive me for not following the proportions) on the sketch, they are separated by a wall of infinite height, and the distance between them is just 2 inches. However, in order to reach the target, grenade would need to travel ~700 inches. Things I'd like to know: 1) Is this still the intended way the Speculative Fire with a grenade weapon works? 2) What if walls are not infinitely high, but just 40" high? 20" high? 5" high? 3) Do any range MODs apply here? In case with 40" walls? In case with 20" walls? In case with 5" walls?
1 & 2) Yes, it's a concession towards playability that seems weird in academic abstract situations like the one you've posted but it's far far quicker and easier than faffing about with shadow zones like in N2 or attempting to trace a parabola. 3) Range mods are always measured as the absolute distance between attacker and the main target, position of template and intervening terrain does not affect this. In your example you would get whatever bonus the weapon gets for 2" range.
That's a really interesting gaming table, to say the least. My answer would be: 1) I'd say yes, because spec. fire can be interpreted as throwing the grenade and taking advantage of nearby walls or ceilings or stuff to rebound and hit an area somewhere near the target, and such extreme a situation would never occour in game. Also, there is a way to trace the trajectory of the Attack, even if it looks quite absurd (then again, this is an absurd table setup). 2) Doesn't matter how tall the wall is, by RAW if it's not infinite you can spec. fire over it. 3) According to the wiki, distance between troopers is measured this way: Spoiler I'd say range between the blue and green models in your example is 2".
I have specifically provided an extreme example just to see how people would be basing their answers. As long as I see someone saying smth like 'this is too extreme' / 'this is a highly unrealistic outcome' or 'such extreme a situation would never occour in game', I'm thinking they probably have some threshold after which their reasoning model starts to fail, but instead of accepting that they cover it with no-true-scotsman kind of argument like 'this can never happen in the game'. Hence, my question here can be transformed into 'How extreme an example should be so you would deem it not too extreme but still extremely confusing?' I'm assuming you think there is a finite height limit for walls after reaching which you stop being able to spec fire over them. If so, where is it defined in the rules? :) And if that is a finite limit, how does it differ from my example assuming we change vertical grenade travel distances to horizontal? I'm trying to say that current rules for grenades combined with Spec Fire are even more confusing than those of N2 where you could at least apply a 'real life example'. But now you can easily find yourself in a situation where you stand scratching your head and asking yourself, 'Is this really how the game works?'. I'd say that N2 approach was probably also a bit too complex as well, requiring the players to trace the trajectory of a grenade, but current way can be also quite confusing when someone finds that RAW allow you to lob a grenade that can travel a labyrinthine trajectory and still hit its target. And if grenades can do this, why Smart weapons cannot? This wouldn't be such a big issue if Core fireteams wouldn't have that +3 BS bonus applied to any BS Attack. Because being able to launch a grenade into a target located in a room on the 3rd floor of a building littered with walls, ladders and scatter terrain with an entrance located 12" away from the firing point sounds highly absurd to me. If I were to change the Spec Fire rule, I'd implement it somewhat like Blaster Launcher/Disruptor Pulse Launcher from original X-Com games. I mean, assume the trajectory as a polyline with a maximum of 7 salient points, and count distance not as a straight line between firer and its target, but all the way along the polyline. Don't we use the same way when moving?
It's a game – its an abstraction. The rules are clear cut for a reason, to make things easy and stop arguments before they happen, regardless if one player cannot imagine them in really life or not. think about smoke templates, you're either in or out regardless of how much of your model is actually obscured.
That's way, way, more confusing and complex. To check if you can Spec Fire now can be summed up as: Is the target in a sealed building? Is the attacker in a sealed building? If no to both, then you can Spec Fire
Sure, but this rule interaction is exactly what's causing arguments. And since there is no clear way the rules mention that the only distance to measure the trajectory of a grenade is the straight line between the Silhouettes of the firer and the target, I'd say rules fail at stopping any arguments. I have been in a situation like this myself when my opponent wanted to launch a grenade assuming it has some built-in guidance software, and rules didn't mention anything about this.
It's just a normal BS attack with the LoF exception. why wouldn't you measure it just like a normal BS attack?
why would the rule need to mention the fluff related to how the grenade is built and works ? the rule says how you measure range between models to use with the range band modifiers. That is what you use. From the opening post, i thought you were the one setting up the example to demonstrate how silly the current rules are, in which case I'm asking you : wel,l where exactly do you draw the line between what is too silly and what is okay ? edit: actually, you even mention knowing how the rule work like, and you were asking if the rule still apply in the extreme example you set up for us. Assuming by apply you mean if the rule are still valid/legal, the answer is obviously Yes, as there is nothing in the rule that sets a line on the non-extreme/extreme scale at which point the rule works (or is applied) differently.
Honestly, it just didn't strike me as clear at that moment. Probably because the only other example of a BS Attack not requiring LoF is an attack with Guided ammo. But then again, Guided requires the target to be in Targeted state. And also you usually assume grenades travel some sort of parabolic trajectory, maybe ricochetting a few times before they hit the target, but definitely not something like my extreme example.
that is an example of a non-extreme case, it still doesn't say that the rule text is void if the wall is infinite requiring the model to throw a curve ball. for example, The Armory is infinite height, you can still spec fire into it once a door is open even if doing so require some awkward-to-define trajectory.
Sure, but it is also the only example that rule has. How I am supposed to assume that grenades actually have some sort of tracking tech inside and can actually trace highly complex trajectories? I mean, Perimeter rules specifically mention that these weapons always reach their target, no matter how far inside their ZoC it is, Smart weapons have this in their fluff description. Why should I assume that grenades are capable of this if nothing points to that?
This is one of the questions I would like others to answer. One of the reasons for writing this post was really to show how silly the current rules are, because you are still allowed to do not that extreme grenade attacks, but which still cause questions. My real example was this situation depicted below. My opponent wanted to launch a grenade attack to kill my Designated Target in the central building (the arrow traces back to the firer; and we assumed the building is infinite high). When I asked him how he sees the possibility to shoot like that he replied that it is kinda possible to launch a grenade at one of the small windows in the side doors of the building. I (still assuming somewhat a parabolic trajectory because of the example in the rules for Spec Fire) disagreed to this and we agreed that he needs to walk down the ladder where he can at least see the corner of the crate my DT was hiding behind, and then he could launch a Spec Fire grenade. It wasn't all that extreme if you ask me, but I was really thinking that grenades fly a parabola in this game, and the example in the Spec Fire rule seemed to support my assumption. Only later at home I discovered that I was actually wrong when I found a post on the old forums.
I think you're just getting hung up on game logic and fluff reasoning and trying to apply that to the rules. it works in some cases but not all.
I won't deny that I am, but I am just one example. I wonder how many other people find the rules for Spec Firing grenade as confusing as I do. Because, you know, lack of feedback doesn't necessarily mean everything's fine. Maybe people are just playing it like I initially assumed it ought to be played. I am really interested to find this out. Maybe I should edit the first post accordingly.
Speculative Fire, Perimeter Weapon triggering, and Engage all sound like they should care about the path being used, but they don't. And it's all probably for similar reasons: With the amount of terrain on the table, it'd be a lot of work that would just slow stuff down. Instead, they just have the simple "Does this have to pass through a sealed off room?" check.
Was the room sealed? Ie was there an open door/window allowing access to it without opening something? From the picture it seems like it wasn't (plus your hvt couldn't be in there if it was) That is the only stipulation blocking spec fire. I agree it is best not to over think it. The parabolic fire thing was from back in n2 and really only served to slow the game. If fluff explanation bugs you, you can assume the -6 spec fire penalties and range mods account for difficulty/ease of rickochets and you can assume that high tech troops have the targeting equipment/ability/training/sheer luck to put the explosive reasonably near the target. It's a bit weird, but i prefer it to a long discussion for a shot that will often end up missing anyway unless you managed to put them in targeted state. :)
Agreed. It saves a lot of hassle having to measure both trigger range and path length, and instead simply requires that a path exist.
Perimeter weapon rules specifically mention that they don't care about the path. Only about target being inside ZoC of the Perimeter weapon. Please note that Spec Fire rules do not have this clarification. I am not arguing that CB must change the way grenades work (albeit I wish they did). I'm arguing that the way grenades work with Spec Fire is described very ambiguously and should be probably rewritten, assuming Perimeter weapon rules as an example.
