Jump to content



Photo

Advanced Aircraft Rules - I can't see anyone actually using these…


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Kriegschatten

Kriegschatten

    Member

  • Members
  • 207 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:17 AM

Not sure what they were thinking with the Advanced Aircraft Rules.  At least, I’m not sure what they were thinking about this *specific* rule:

“While airborne, aircraft units cannot be targeted by standard ATTACK actions from ground units or aircraft units with the Hover skill. Aircraft units can only be  targeted by SUSTAINED ATTACK actions. Additionally, when making a SUSTAINED ATTACK against aircraft units, results are not rerolled.”

 

So, doesn’t this effectively mean that you can’t use Reactive Fire against aircraft?  If so, that seems really, really, REALLY stupid since most of the units with Advanced or Superior Reactive Fire are anti-aircraft units like the Heinrich, Sturmkonig, and Wildfire.

 

As if aircraft needed to be MORE powerful than they already are…



#2 Mattador Actual

Mattador Actual

    Member

  • Members
  • 119 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:02 PM

Kriegschatten said:

Not sure what they were thinking with the Advanced Aircraft Rules.  At least, I’m not sure what they were thinking about this *specific* rule:

“While airborne, aircraft units cannot be targeted by standard ATTACK actions from ground units or aircraft units with the Hover skill. Aircraft units can only be  targeted by SUSTAINED ATTACK actions. Additionally, when making a SUSTAINED ATTACK against aircraft units, results are not rerolled.”

 

So, doesn’t this effectively mean that you can’t use Reactive Fire against aircraft?  If so, that seems really, really, REALLY stupid since most of the units with Advanced or Superior Reactive Fire are anti-aircraft units like the Heinrich, Sturmkonig, and Wildfire.

 

As if aircraft needed to be MORE powerful than they already are…

Yeah, I didn't like those too much upon the first read.  I really don't wanna see an "Unearthed Arcana"-type deal happening with DT/DW (optional rules to add realism/verisimilitude/whatever).  A game like this just gaining some traction, and desperately in need of a solid rules framework to work with tournament/organized play/scene-wise doesn't need to throw something like this in, not now.  They shoulda just sent it to Dust Chronicles.



#3 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 958 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:29 PM

I like them, they are somewhat reminiscent of the Warfare rules.  Besides the sticky point of reactive fire, they are smarter rules that allow aircraft to be dealt with better, something an allied player can appreciate.



#4 Miah999

Miah999

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,143 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:42 PM

I'm note sure there's an issue with Reactive Fire, I'm looking at the RCS rules and I don't see anything in the Reactive Fire section that even resembles Sustained Attack. It says if you succeed your Reactive Fire roll you preform "a single attack action," not a Sustained Attack.

Am I missing something.



#5 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:50 PM

Also, Air Alert doesn't work as you don't make re-rolls when making a Sustained Attack and Air Alert allows you to re-roll re-rolls.



#6 Kriegschatten

Kriegschatten

    Member

  • Members
  • 207 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:44 AM

Miah999 said:

I'm note sure there's an issue with Reactive Fire, I'm looking at the RCS rules and I don't see anything in the Reactive Fire section that even resembles Sustained Attack. It says if you succeed your Reactive Fire roll you preform "a single attack action," not a Sustained Attack.

Am I missing something.

 

The issue to me is that, according to the new rules, you can *only* attack an aircraft with a Sustained Attack.

 

Since Reactive Fire is *not* a Sustained Attack, you *can't* use it against aircraft.

 

That seems very counterintuitive since most of the units with Advanced or Superior Reactive are explicitly supposed to be anti-air units.



#7 Kriegschatten

Kriegschatten

    Member

  • Members
  • 207 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:48 AM

Major Mishap said:

Also, Air Alert doesn't work as you don't make re-rolls when making a Sustained Attack and Air Alert allows you to re-roll re-rolls.

Well, the last page of the Advanced Aircraft Rules does change the way that Air Alert works:

"When playing with advanced flying rules, do not use the Air Alert skill as described in expansion rulebooks. Instead, use the following skill description: Units with the Air Alert skill may perform a SUSTAINED ATTACK as normal when spending two actions to fire at an airborne aircraft unit.”"



#8 Miah999

Miah999

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,143 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:51 AM

Ok now I see what you meant.



#9 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:58 AM

Anybody fancy making a flow diagram for using these optional rules, its way to confusing with all the different criteria need on who can fire at what, with what skills and what dice to roll.



#10 xBeakeRx

xBeakeRx

    Member

  • Members
  • 200 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:11 AM

Yeah, I'm not a fan of these either.  The joy of DT/DW is the simplicity in the rules, this just adds a layer of complexity not needed in my opinion.  Only firing at aircraft with a sustained attack is bad news in my opinion.  Not only does it negate all forms of reactive fire, it means players will be forced to take specific models in their armies just in case they go up against aircraft.  For an army like SSU, that means our only true means of dealing with aircraft is the Mao Zedong, an 83 point magnet.



#11 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:25 AM

I like the idea of airborne and grounded aircraft, but that's about it. No need to add all this complexity of who can use a sustained attack against what. Aircraft already negate Unlimited weapons and most of the units in the game can't even touch them, I don't see why you'd need to add this while other complicated layer with the sustained attacks.

Aircraft lifting off and landing seems like a simple enough mechanic that offers a little more strategic options. You can land your helicopter behind a building to avoid getting shot down, then once your other troops have taken out the AA guns, you can lift off again and wreak havoc with impunity. The necessity of being grounded to unload carried units does diminuish the effectivity of carrier aircraft, so I don't know how great a thing that is. One idea I had is you don't HAVE to land your aircraft to unload units, but if a units disembarks from an airborne aircraft it loses on of its actions. So you can land and have your troops exit and attack / exit and move, or you can remain airborne, but because the troops are parachuting down, all they do in their activation is leave the carrier.



#12 mgentile7

mgentile7

    Member

  • Members
  • 723 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 05:49 AM

Major Mishap said:

Anybody fancy making a flow diagram for using these optional rules, its way to confusing with all the different criteria need on who can fire at what, with what skills and what dice to roll.

I can. I use visio a lot and can ,ake a nice flow chart. I just need someone to explain the rules to me first as I have not fully absorbed them. Send me a private email and we can work on it if you wish.



#13 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:09 AM

Yeah, need it explaining to me first, that's why I want a flow diagram :)  Until the Reactive Fire gets fixed first, can't see them being useful yet.  I have mailed FFG but they never reply about rule mistakes.



#14 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

    Member

  • Members
  • 958 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:13 AM

Major Mishap said:

Yeah, need it explaining to me first, that's why I want a flow diagram :)  Until the Reactive Fire gets fixed first, can't see them being useful yet.  I have mailed FFG but they never reply about rule mistakes.

weird, everyone I've seen, including me, gets answers from Zach pretty quickly on rules questions.  Do you email direct or use the rules form on this site?



#15 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:53 AM

blkdymnd said:

Major Mishap said:

 

Yeah, need it explaining to me first, that's why I want a flow diagram :)  Until the Reactive Fire gets fixed first, can't see them being useful yet.  I have mailed FFG but they never reply about rule mistakes.

 

 

weird, everyone I've seen, including me, gets answers from Zach pretty quickly on rules questions.  Do you email direct or use the rules form on this site?

 

I use the site.  Any actual rules questions get answered quick, but if you send a problem, it gets ignored.  I did once get a reply on 'why' a rule was in place and just got told thats just how its designed, never got a reply for that type of thing since.



#16 Lska

Lska

    Member

  • Members
  • 487 posts

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:17 PM

Aircraft are already a pain for my army, i dont see why anyone would agree on those. Only idea i have is when both players agree on a set amount if flayers per side and then use the rules.

#17 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:25 AM

There's another problem.  There are now weapons, like the .50mg, that can damage an airbourne flyer but not one that's grounded.  



#18 Kriegschatten

Kriegschatten

    Member

  • Members
  • 207 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:03 AM

Major Mishap said:

There's another problem.  There are now weapons, like the .50mg, that can damage an airbourne flyer but not one that's grounded.  

 

Good point! 

And that list is not short, either.  In fact, it's probably almost all of the light & medium anti-air units like the Heinrich, Wildfire, Rattler, Heavy Recon Grenadiers, Nastasia, etc.



#19 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:27 AM

I got a reply back from Zach concerning the Reactive Fire:

According to the Advanced Aircraft rules, ground units cannot target airborne aircraft units with standard ATTACK actions. Ground units may only target airborne aircraft units with a SUSTAINED ATTACK action on their activation. Reactive Fire is a special action, and may still be attempted as normal in response to an airborne aircraft unit's activation. However, the range restriction of 6 spaces still applies to Reactive Fire.






© 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