Jump to content



Photo

Aim action combined with a delayed shoot


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 exeetor

exeetor

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 02:51 AM

As topbic says, is this possible or is the delay action seen as an actual action and therefore removes the bonus from the aim?
We had a big descussion about this during our last play session.

Anyone knows? :)

Thx!



#2 Cryhavok

Cryhavok

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 04:14 PM

Outside of the rules, does what the person is doing make sense? The rules are supposed to give deffinition to what the players are doing, not restrict them to a robot like list of commands. So, as you know the details of the situation, does it make sense for the player to be able to aim and then wait for the perfect time to take the shot?

Personally, I would allow it. This opinion is reinforced after reading both rules in the book.


#3 Fgdsfg

Fgdsfg

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,240 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:06 PM

I don't see how this even can become a discussion. Who is so massively autistic that they wouldn't allow this, provided that nothing else actually inturrupts the Aiming player?


Real men earn their fun

Unified WH40kRP Ruleset Homebrew - Personal Notes
Talking Necrons. Dreadknights. Centurion Armour. Sororitas-murdering Grey Knights.
These things are dumb and do not exist. This is non-negotiable and undebatable.


#4 Darth Smeg

Darth Smeg

    Lord Nitpicker

  • Members
  • 1,582 posts

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:09 PM

We have always played with this combo, but I suppose if you're reading the rules as the Devils Advocate it does state that the action after aim must be an attack or the bonus is lost. 

As Delay is not an attack, one could argue that the bonus will indeed be lost.


Tarald - The Dark Lord of Smeg

 

My House Rules for using Only War (and more) for Dark Heresy games


#5 Alox

Alox

    Member

  • Members
  • 284 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:02 AM

I would allow the combination.

Delaying is not really a new action, in this case I would understand it as maintaining the aim.

If delay meant: take cover, look around, fiddle with your thumb or something.. maybe it could be regarded as breaking the aim, but I don't really see this.

 



#6 Cymbel

Cymbel

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 04:09 PM

The only thing that disrupts an Aim if you move, get distracted or use a reaction to defend yourself, as long as you keep the gun up and ready, you can delay if you wantk. You could make an argument by RaW MAYBE, but not by RaI. I see delay as displacing part of your turn.



#7 Trader Austin

Trader Austin

    Member

  • Members
  • 111 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:35 PM

in ground combat i would allow it for a number of turns equil to their toughness bonus if standing or kneeling. prone i would probably rule x2 or x3 TB. this assumes that they arn't doing something while waiting, even talking. this reflects that strain of lifting the weapon and keeping it on target. these are more guidelines for a sniper waiting for that perfect shot. if it's just for a round, or fraction of a round, (say you aim at a spot just outside a corner waiting for the enemy to come put to shoot) then as long as they arn't diving for cover or something then it just makes sense to let them. 



#8 Cryhavok

Cryhavok

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 12:28 AM


in ground combat i would allow it for a number of turns equil to their toughness bonus if standing or kneeling. prone i would probably rule x2 or x3 TB. this assumes that they arn't doing something while waiting, even talking. this reflects that strain of lifting the weapon and keeping it on target. these are more guidelines for a sniper waiting for that perfect shot. if it's just for a round, or fraction of a round, (say you aim at a spot just outside a corner waiting for the enemy to come put to shoot) then as long as they arn't diving for cover or something then it just makes sense to let them. 



Speaking from personal, real life experience, that limit is silly. I would reccomend you let them maintain it as long as they remain uninterupted. Of course if they loose sight of the target they should also lose the aim. If they are aiming at a spot waiting for someone to show up, you should use overwatch, not aim. But hey, whatever works for you.


#9 Kasatka

Kasatka

    Member

  • Members
  • 877 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:49 AM

I don't have my copy of the book to hand to doubel check but if the Delay action is anything like the other games in the line then it works like this:
On your turn you have 1 Full Action that can be split into 2 Half Actions if you wish.

Delaying is a Half Action and must be the first action on your turn.

Once Delayed, you retain your other Half Action for use later during the Initative sequence of the same turn.

As such Aim could never be used in combination with Delay.

Apologies if Rogue Trader is completely different to the ther game lines but that is how my group has always run it across all the 40k Rps.


Only the insane have strength enough to prosper.

Only those that prosper may truly judge what is sane.


#10 PantsCommander

PantsCommander

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 06:16 AM

Kasatka said:

Delaying is a Half Action and must be the first action on your turn.

This is where it differs. In fact, with RAW, you'd actually be hampered by doing Delay first since the moment you declare the Delay, your turn ends. It doesn't say anything about having to go first, and with it being a Half Action, you could (by the rules) do a Half action and then delay your second one with no penalty. In effect this makes it so that you can never act before your Initiative Step, but at almost anytime after it. In order for it to work as you have stated, Delay would have to be a Full Action.

Going back to the original question, I'm with everyone else so far in that a Delay shouldn't break an Aim action. Granted I realize that this might be ignoring RAW for one reason and following RAW in another, but I just work here.



#11 Darth Smeg

Darth Smeg

    Lord Nitpicker

  • Members
  • 1,582 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:10 AM

The wording of Delay has been identical through all the games up unto Only War. During the beta, I pointed this out and mentioned all the discussions on this topic, and asked them to clarify.

They (FFG) did, by changing Delay to a Full Action. 

So it seems that this is the intention behind the wording, even though it is written ambigously.

If you accept this clarification for Rogue Trader as well, then you would have to Aim (twice if you like) on one turn, then Delay on your next. 

Personally I disagree with FFGs ruling here, and feel that sacrificing a Half Action in order to act at a lower initiative than your own is too harsh a penalty. 


Tarald - The Dark Lord of Smeg

 

My House Rules for using Only War (and more) for Dark Heresy games


#12 Kasatka

Kasatka

    Member

  • Members
  • 877 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:49 AM

Darth Smeg said:

The wording of Delay has been identical through all the games up unto Only War. During the beta, I pointed this out and mentioned all the discussions on this topic, and asked them to clarify.

They (FFG) did, by changing Delay to a Full Action. 

So it seems that this is the intention behind the wording, even though it is written ambigously.

If you accept this clarification for Rogue Trader as well, then you would have to Aim (twice if you like) on one turn, then Delay on your next. 

Personally I disagree with FFGs ruling here, and feel that sacrificing a Half Action in order to act at a lower initiative than your own is too harsh a penalty. 

Except it really isn't too harsh - ive had games where when combat starts everyone delays and then just single shots any enemy that appears, interupting the enemy initiative.  That is what overwatch is for, but because you have to be very specific with overwatch and specifying what you'll do and what the trigger is.

Delay is your catch all 'i'm not sure what to do yet so i'll wait' action, but should not be the first port of call for everyone in combat, it should be a last resort if anything if you've exhausted all over options.


Only the insane have strength enough to prosper.

Only those that prosper may truly judge what is sane.


#13 Cryhavok

Cryhavok

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:27 AM

Kasatka said:

Darth Smeg said:

The wording of Delay has been identical through all the games up unto Only War. During the beta, I pointed this out and mentioned all the discussions on this topic, and asked them to clarify.

They (FFG) did, by changing Delay to a Full Action. 

So it seems that this is the intention behind the wording, even though it is written ambigously.

If you accept this clarification for Rogue Trader as well, then you would have to Aim (twice if you like) on one turn, then Delay on your next. 

Personally I disagree with FFGs ruling here, and feel that sacrificing a Half Action in order to act at a lower initiative than your own is too harsh a penalty. 

Except it really isn't too harsh - ive had games where when combat starts everyone delays and then just single shots any enemy that appears, interupting the enemy initiative.  That is what overwatch is for, but because you have to be very specific with overwatch and specifying what you'll do and what the trigger is.

Delay is your catch all 'i'm not sure what to do yet so i'll wait' action, but should not be the first port of call for everyone in combat, it should be a last resort if anything if you've exhausted all over options.

It is too harsh, because often times it is the only recourse for someone eho DOES know what they are going to do, but arent shooting someone, and need to wait for the dight moment. Unless they do something like overwatch for non-shooting actions, like closing a door after your last guy goes through, but before the enemy, and then locking it, or any number of other timing critical actions.

#14 Darth Smeg

Darth Smeg

    Lord Nitpicker

  • Members
  • 1,582 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:25 PM

A prime example is melee fighters. There is a benefit to being charged, rather than charging. 

Why? Because the defending fighter can Dodge/Parry and then respond with a Swift or Lightning attack. The possibility of dealing several hits often outweigh the risk of being hit first. Skilled fihters may feel confident in their ability to avoid one hit (but not 2 or three, perhaps).

But with the RAW, the "best" fighter is likely to have the highest initiative, and so is forced to go first. If he decides to play defensive, and wait to be charged, he is now unable to respond with Full Actions, seriously lowering his fighting potential. 

So the flip side is, it is now more dangerous to charge less-skilled opponent (as the highly skilled defenders will have gimped themselved by delaying).


Tarald - The Dark Lord of Smeg

 

My House Rules for using Only War (and more) for Dark Heresy games


#15 Kasatka

Kasatka

    Member

  • Members
  • 877 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 04:39 AM

To follow on from your example, why isn't the high initative melee fighter using his first action to move towards an enemy while taking advantage of cover, drawing weapons, activating combat drugs/force fields/utility items, calling out to let other characters know (in case of surprise attacks), taking skill checks to identify an enemy/climb/swim etc.

There are so many things i can think of that make going first beneficial, even if i am not able to immediately hit an enemy in melee and win. I don't understand the need for instant gratification. That's what stealthy snipers, 60+ Intelligence Techpriests, starship gunners etc are for!


Only the insane have strength enough to prosper.

Only those that prosper may truly judge what is sane.


#16 Cryhavok

Cryhavok

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 03:43 PM

Logically, if delaying costs so much, it should follow that poeople lower in the initative order have less actions, as the are essentially waiting to realize they need to go. Fortunately that isnt how the rules work. I think Ill stick with delay moving a half action till later, as my interpretation of RTs unclear RaW, instead of going with OWs part of your turn magically disappears rules.

#17 susanbrindle

susanbrindle

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 12:41 AM

The only time I wouldn'y allow a player to Delay after Aiming is if they wanted to Aim in preparation for an enemy arriving, since that's what Overwatch is for.



#18 Naviward

Naviward

    Member

  • Members
  • 237 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 05:24 AM

What we play, that seems to work well is the following:-

*Delay as written, so it's a half action on your turn to then have a half action before your next action (so that it can be higher up the initative next turn if need be) based on a condition.

*Aim can be used in previous turns and then used with the delayed action (as long as it is a shot, of course), assuming that no other actions have got in the way (like reactions)

*When performing the delayed action, it's an opposed agility check against the target to see who gets to do their action first (sadly can't remember if there is actually a rule for this or if it's a house rule). This makes delay worse than overwatch as it's both a half action, not a full (so you can't shoot as much) and overwatch is an automatic interrupt, not a challenge.

*Players are free to drop their initative at any point to a lower value, but obviously have to stick with this new value for the rest of the combat. If they do this then they are free to do a full action at the new initiative (which stops the "why are slower character get an advantage" thing). I believe this is a house rule, but I might be wrong.

 

To the original question, personally, I'd just agree with the players what interpretation of the rules makes most sense to everyone and just go with that (remembering of course, if they can do it then so can the NPCs).  






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS