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

Pitchers/Smoke and Saturation Zones

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Reece, Mar 9, 2018.

  1. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    6,863
     
    A Mão Esquerda and Razi like this.
  2. Razi

    Razi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    80
    I didn't see this double post.

    That's good to know. However, it doesn't resolve the issue where the rules don't require us to choose a single main target with a BS attack DTW.

    EDIT: @ijw Isn't it easier to just tighten up the rules by adding one very specific requirement to either BS attack or DTWs, rather than to keep pretending the rules say something other than they actually do? Impact templates have that requirement, so does Intuitive attack, AROs, the list goes on.
     
    #122 Razi, Mar 14, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
  3. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    4,865
    @Razi BS Attack doesn't have a single main target, each point of burst has a main target.

    You're also the first I've heard of that interprets this particular fundamental section of the rules this way which indicates that the rules are not in dire need of a re-write and all the 10s (if not 100s) of hours of salaried work that needs to go into such a change. To put it bluntly, it's not cheap to fix something that only one person has a problem with*.

    * and a bunch want written more consistently and to a higher standard, but then we're talking 100s to 1000s of hours of work instead.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  4. Xeurian

    Xeurian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    451
    One point of note you may not be aware of is that IJW is one of the volunteer rules developers of the game and when he tells you the intent of a rule, full stop, you can be quite certain that it is the intent of the rule as he often does not go that far. He is the greatest authority over the rules we have outside of a direct message from CB.
     
    A Mão Esquerda and Razi like this.
  5. Razi

    Razi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    80
    Probably because most players are taught to play, how their local group already plays. And whoever had to learn from scratch probably didn't have to worry about declaring main targets for BS attacks and DTWs. They're pretty intuitive and it wouldn't cause problems. As you said yourself, Burst 2+ DTWs interacting with Sat zones is rare. I'm not surprised to be the only person to notice this potential issue in the rules. I'm the kind of person that can pick out small errors in large amounts of code. A written rule set isn't massively different, or at least it shouldn't be.

    Burst rules don't require declaring a main target:

    When firing, you can distribute the weapon's Burst amongst any number of enemies within LoF. Choose this distribution when declaring the Short Skill BS Attack

    The burst rules only indicate to choose the distribution among any number of enemies within LoF. That is accomplished when placing the templates down. I see nothing in those rules to indicate each burst must declare one single target. Again, I'm sure nobody cares, the common outcome is going to be picking one target for each burst of a combi rifle. Why would anyone look any furher into the rules, I didn't. But using multiple burst DTWs in a Sat zone was something i thought about with the Shas update.
     
    #125 Razi, Mar 14, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
  6. Razi

    Razi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    80
    That's good to know, thanks. I'll concede to @ijw 's ruling about how to play it. But I won't concede to his interpretation of what the written rules are actually saying.
     
  7. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    556
    I'm curious how you would interpret the following:

    Single enemy nearby, you lay a template to try and hit it, but it's out of range. However, a HD troop is in the area of effect and comes out to ARO shoot. Does the HD trooper get hit? Why or why not?
     
    inane.imp and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  8. Razi

    Razi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    80
    From the Order Expenditure Seq,

    If the Player declares a Skill and, when he applies its Effects, he realizes the Requirements are not met, then the Skill is considered null.​

    I'd say it depends on whether the effects are applied before or after the ARO declaration is made. If it's after, then the HD trooper making an ARO is hit. If it's before, he's not hit. The whole simultaneous nature of the OES isn't clear to me so maybe it doesn't even matter.
     
    #128 Razi, Mar 14, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
  9. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    556
    Just to be clear, there is no question in our interpretation. If you missed your declared target, the template doesn't land and the HD trooper is free to pop out and shoot without fear of getting hit.

    The reason I bring it up is because it's one of those cases where you'd think it's one way (I mean, you're spraying an area with fire), but the rules say something else*.

    *I'm granting that you have a different idea on what the rules say.
     
  10. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,144
    Likes Received:
    3,399
    Even then if you strictly apply the Order Expenditure sequence I can make both interpretations work for this.

    3. Alice declares a BS Attack against Bob.
    4. Bob declares a BS Attack with LFT at Alice. Alice is out of range. Bob's attack is cancelled at this point because at Declaration the attack wasn't valid.
    5. Alice Moves forward into the area previously occupied by the Template.

    The Template was cancelled at Declaration because it hit no targets and therefore wasn't valid. It's irrelevant whether or not the 'main' target or any other targets enter the Template area because the Template has already been cancelled.

    Razi is correct that DTW's generally don't need a declared main target to function. It's also generally irrelevant because it's a distinction without a difference. Practically it's easier to conceive of all BS Attacks as requiring a main target per Burst at all times.

    It's only in Sat Zone's where this becomes an issue: KinginYellow's conception of Razi's position is persuasive and would be how people would play DTWs. That is, you would be able to avoid Sat Zones with DTWs entirely even vs a single target.

    The reason that we all hold that any BS Attack requires a declared (main) target is because it creates coherency in the rules: it means that all BS Attacks function the same way (with intentional exceptions) in the same circumstances. It also makes the language work easier: Alice fired a DTW at Bob also hitting Charlie rather than Alice fired a DTW in such a way that Bob and Charlie were hit.

    What's most amusing is the amount of agreement we've had on this issue.

    At this point though, I agree with IJW: either Razi accepts that's he's literally on his own with this one and plays it the way we've described or he accepts that he isn't playing the same game anyone else is.
     
    #130 inane.imp, Mar 14, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
    Xeurian, Razi and A Mão Esquerda like this.