1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Ya podéis usar los foros de la campaña Kurage Crisis. Está en Infinity>Juego>Eventos Online>Kurage Crisis --------------------- Kurage Crisis forums now live. Find them at Infinity>Game>Online Events>Kurage Crisis
    Dismiss Notice

Looting and Sabotaging, using CC multiple model bonus on the AC2?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Gero, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:19 AM.

  1. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    1,539
    Then the Fireteam would become Engaged with it. Which means that BS Attacks into CC rules would apply.

    Also it means that 2 Pupniks beating on an AC2 would gain the bonus but not 2 Pupniks beating on a door. This is no less confusing than my original position (No to Fireteams, Yes to co-ord/G-Sync).

    It's easier by far to ignore* 'troopers' in the definition of enemy in the rules and apply a plain language reading instead. (The response when I informed my meta that RAW Fast Pandas and other Deployable Equipment weren't enemies and therefore can't be subject to a normal everyday BS Attack but only to Attacks specifically able to target Deployable Equipment, was "Fuck off." Which made me laugh. It's not something I intend abusing.)

    * I considered writing 'continue ignoring' because as best as I can tell that's not how it's generally played right now.
     
    #21 inane.imp, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:44 PM
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018 at 11:34 PM
  2. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    I mean, I guess you could take it that far. I was making a comparison, however, not a definitive rules statement. In the absence of further clarification for the scenario specific rules, the TO should specify, or not use this mission.
     
  3. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    I really don't see why 2 pups beating on the same door shouldn't get a bonus either, it seems quite fitting.

    And if your position is that multiple coordinated troops making a CC attack vs a fireteam making a CC attack should be treated differently, that doesn't seem really defensible. The two rules have almost cut-and-paste wording for chunks of the CC rules.
     
  4. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    1,539
    Which is how we play it (TO tells you). Usually* our TO will go with 'engaging in CC = Engaged, you can't be Engaged with terrain/objectives, CC Attacks with AM weapons are permitted vs terrain/objectives, in a Fireteam only the Leader attacks in co-ord/G-Sync each Attack is resolved individually.'

    Ultimately either the Fireteam is in an Engaged state or they're not. If not, then you can allow CC Attacks vs specific not-enemies without becoming Engaged.

    *@daboarder I think?
     
  5. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    But, again, I see no valid reason why you would treat fireteams differently from coordinated orders. They are functionally equivalent in this respect.
     
  6. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    1,539
    For Pups to get the Bonus vs a door then it's a general rule change not a specific exception for a mission.

    The wording is almost but not quite the same. If you consider only Troopers to be Enemies then it's functionally the same.

    I think the actual easiest way to make this work is write a set of rules for 'CC Attacks vs Terrain / Objectives' and specify how you want it to work rather than trying to shoe-horn other rules in to make it come out in a particular way. The whole thing is a massive mess.
     
  7. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    Agreed.
     
  8. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    1,539
    Because a Fireteam executing an attack only the leader performs the attack: this is the general rule of Fireteams.

    Because in a Co-ordinated order every trooper individually performs the short skill unless 'engaging in CC' for which they (according to that interpretation) be Engaged.
     
  9. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    Fireteam:
    • In Close Combat, whether in the Active or Reactive Turn, when several members are engaged in the same CC, only the Team Leader trooper will perform the CC Roll, gaining a MOD of +1 to his B and +1 to the PH Attribute for Damage for each Fireteam member Engaged with the adversary.
    • Other friendly troopers engaged in that CC, who are not members of his Fireteam don't provide any bonus to the Team Leader.
    Coordinated:
    • In Close Combat, only the Spearhead trooper will perform the CC Roll, getting a MOD of +1 to his B and +1 to the PH Attribute for Damage for each friendly trooper participating in the Coordinated Order engaged with the adversary.
    • Other friendly troopers engaged in that CC but not participating in the Coordinated Order don't provide any Bonus to the Spearhead trooper.

    Let's say X can be "Spearhead" or "Fireteam Leader" and Y can be "Fireteam member" or "Coordinated order member." Both rules quickly distill down to:

    In Close Combat, only X will perform the CC Roll, getting a MOD of +1 to his B and +1 to the PH Attribute for Damage for each Y engaged with the adversary.
     
  10. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    2,322
    they arent the same though are they.

    Theres similarities, very close ones, But they specifically have their own rules.

    And requiring the Engaged state is part there of the fireteam rules.
    They dont get the bonus any more than they halve their burst or get to attack different targets (Co-ord and Gsync respectively)

    The three methods of moving multiple troops with a single order are very similar but they are also unique and this situation is one where they absolutely behave differently.

    Now will that change in the future? perhaps, I certainly wouldnt be adverse to @HellLois making a ruling on it one way or another. But until then there is Engaged (The state) and engaged (The descriptive)
     
  11. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    1,539
    Specifically Fireteams also have this rule, whereas Co-ordinated Orders do not:

    "When declaring Support Skills, only the Team Leader performs the roll and applies the effects. The rest of the Fireteam members do not perform any Roll or apply their effects, but they give the Team Leader certain bonuses determined by the number of Fireteam members."

    CC Attack is a Support Skill.

    So unless you consider the Troopers of the Co-ordinated to be "in Close Combat" with the Objective/terrain (which is - according to IJW - actually "in the Engaged state" ) the general Co-ord rules would apply, specifically:

    "All participating troopers must declare and execute the exact same sequence of Skills.

    If one of the Skills of the Coordinated Order demands a target, all troops must act against the same single target.

    In a Coordinated Order, the Spearhead trooper uses half the usual Burst (B) of his weapon, including any bonuses, rounded up.

    All other troopers participating in the Coordinated Order have their B reduced to 1, regardless of their weapon."


    Basically:
    Either you are Engaged with the AC2, in which case X performs the Attack and Y adds bonuses.

    Or, you are not Engaged with the AC2, in which case X performs the Attack and Y act in accordance with their general rules.
     
    #31 inane.imp, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:07 AM
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 1:15 AM
  12. Teslarod

    Teslarod Trebuchet Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    673
    oh god I hate to do this... this is not gonna end well

    For Looting and Sabotaging and only that Mission, what do we think was intended?

    Considering how sturdy the AC2 is, the mission is a piece of cake for some Factions and a steep uphill battle for several Factions/Sectorials without Fireteam CC Bonus or Gang Up. Lets not pretend that D-Charges in CC mode are the answer.
    So for the sake of being able to handle this POS of a mission at all, would this be the one case where common consesus should apply no questions asked?
     
    #32 Teslarod, Jul 14, 2018 at 3:08 PM
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2018 at 3:33 PM
  13. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,474
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Kerr-Nau supported by a bunch of Rodoks says otherwise. :-)
     
  14. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    1,539
    I think the intended interaction is the least supportable RAW.

    1. You can make CC Attacks vs the AC2 if the Trooper is in B2B* with it
    2. You can apply CC Special Skills to CC Attacks made vs the AC2 if the Trooper is in B2B* with it
    3. You can apply the Burst bonus from inactive Troopers in B2B* with the AC2
    4. You can apply the Burst and PH bonus from active Troopers on B2B* with the AC2 (from Fireteams, Gsync and Co-ord Orders)
    5. You don't actually ever count as being in the Engaged state with the AC2

    *Only count models in B2B at Resolution, this disallows Moving people into and out of B2B just to gain the bonus.
     
    ijw likes this.
  15. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,474
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    I agree that this is the intention, but not that it's the least supported/supportable.
     
  16. Teslarod

    Teslarod Trebuchet Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    673
    Disposable(3) D-Charges in CC Mode hitting on 10s is precisely why I claim D-Charges are not the answer.
    Not willing to gamble up to 7 Objective points on three coin tosses followed by ARM rolls. A little bit of lucky RNG and the entire mission goes down the toilet, while Achilles on the other side of the table simply spends a second or third Order in case it wasn't enough.

    Yes, what I'm saying is - it only makes sense if we can treat the AC2 as an enemy trooper for the purpose of this mission.
    This is absolutely not covered by the rules, but seems somewhat obvious as the intention for how the mission was suppoesd to work.
     
    Ginrei likes this.
  17. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    1,539
    No. Because if you treat it as an enemy Trooper then you become Engaged with it. I'm saying you just make shit up.
     
  18. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    1,539
    You can't both gain Fireteam bonuses with it and not be Engaged. The way the rules are you pick one (either you get Fireteam bonuses and are Engaged or are not Engaged and don't get Fireteam bonuses). The intent appears to be to have both.
     
  19. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,474
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    You can't gain any bonuses with it and not be Engaged.
     
  20. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    1,539
    Yes, I was mainly using Fireteam bonuses as the simplest case for the 'ganging up bonuses' because they all require you to be base to base with an enemy Trooper and therefore Engaged.

    However, you can get the bonuses for MA etc without being Engaged if you read the clarification that allows you to CC Attack AC2s at all (which I can't actually find) as:
    * "the AC2 is valid target of CC Attacks and CC special skills despite not being an enemy Trooper",
    rather than
    * "treat the AC2 as an enemy Trooper" which would cause the Engaged state.

    Either works. Just pick one.