Jump to content



Photo

aircraft without hover


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 fhaugh

fhaugh

    Member

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:34 AM

Just want to see what everyone else thinks on this.  An aircraft without hover must take a Move action each turn.  Does it need to actually move?  Could it take the action but stay in the same place?  If it has to move, can it move forward one and then back one, ending up in the same spot?

This could also matter for "Fighting Spirit" since you have to "Move before attacking".

I say a move action lets you move UP TO your movement value.  You don't have to use all of it, you could use none of it.



#2 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:47 PM

Yeah, that's an issue I'd been meaning to bring up and that I'd hoped the rules would have addressed properly. As I see it there are 4 options:

1) You just need to spend a Move action, you don't really need to move at all. All it really means is that you can't use Sustained Fire.

2) You need to actually move, but you can go back and forth and essentially remain in the same place.

3) You nned to actually move, but you may move less than your Move rating, to a minimum of 1. Can't end your move in the same spot, though.

4) You need to move your full Move rating.

 

Personally I would prefer option 3. Seems like a more realistic way of handling these aircraft, giving them a slight disadvantage.



#3 fhaugh

fhaugh

    Member

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 01:02 PM

I agree, it would be more realistic.  That of course means that they won't rule it that way…



#4 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:28 AM

I would have said that a plane has to move its full distance, but as the plane can move in any direction and turn on the spot it would be inconsistant to enforce a minimum move.



#5 SeismicShock

SeismicShock

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 01:47 PM

Major Mishap said:

I would have said that a plane has to move its full distance, but as the plane can move in any direction and turn on the spot it would be inconsistant to enforce a minimum move.

eh, but it can't end on any space, so that would lead to some ugliness. I think "can't end on the space(s) it started" works well enough



#6 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 02:41 AM

Sure thats simple and effective way of doing it, but you cant just stop there and change one rule when there are other faults with aircraft rules.  Such as shooting out the rear when the weapons are fixed forward or turning 360' on the spot.  None of these makes any sense and if these aren't changed then making a moving rule is pretty pointless.  It's got to be all or nothing changes, so, for non-hoverers:

1) Must move at least 1 square.

2) Can only make one 90' turn per Action, must move forward before each turn.

3) Can not move sideways or backwards.

4) Can move forward and diagonally forward using the normal movement rules.

5) Fixed weapons can only fire out of a 90' front arc.

6) No restrictions for bombs as they only have a range of 1 anyway.

 



#7 fhaugh

fhaugh

    Member

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 03:11 AM

Major Mishap said:

Sure thats simple and effective way of doing it, but you cant just stop there 

Actually you can.  That's the wonderful thing about rules, you can stop at the level of complexity that you want.  Otherwise you end up with an overly convoluted and confusing ruleset.  AKA, 40k.



#8 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 05:04 AM

Well you can, but its a bit pointless, surely being able to move backwards is worse than not having moving forward?



#9 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 06:30 AM

Thinking about this chat about minimum speed is irrelevent anyway, as FFG have got it all wrong about VTOL aircraft, they can stay still exactly the same as a hovering heli anyway, that's what VTOL stands for Vertical Take Off and Landing, just Google Harrier Jump Jet and see them in action.



#10 Ulrike Meinhof

Ulrike Meinhof

    Member

  • Members
  • 64 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:01 AM

As with all rules, the question is perhaps not "how can we explait unclarity", even if that is indeed also interesting as it sports advancements of rules clarifications.The question is "what did the designers intend?" What are they trying to achive? That's really the only interesting part if one wants to get the most out of the game.

If I had to guess it would be that their intention was to make the planes always move around in contrast to helis. If not, you end up with all kinds of obscure and in 99% of the scenarios - functionless - actions mentioned in this thread, where you move back and forth to "not move" at all etc. It seems as if in absurdum arguments speak against such notions. Then again, I wouldn't know as I can't read minds, but I'm convinces this will be resolved in FAQ or 2:nd revision.

What seems to matter also is what other action can you make, without making it or by faking it? For example, why would it be logical to accept that you perform a movement action without moving the miniature (granted there are legal moves to make of course), when there seems to be no such equivalents when it comes to say the attack action?

You can't perform an attack action unless there is a valid target. You'd have to have line of sight, and weapons reach, to actually perform the attack action.  Notice the wording here: Action. It suggests thats something "is  happening." So, let's say we all agree on that, for the sake of argument. In which case it seems coherent to suggest that you can't perform a move action without actually moving the miniature. 

Here it is also important to differentiate your personal "wish" or "desire" to perform the move/attack action: It is one thing to want to or intend to perform action x. It is another thing to actually be able to legally perform the action. For example, I maybe usually want to perform attack actions, but many times there are no valid targets to perform the actions on, hence the actions can't be performed.

I'm not suggesting that all this is "the way" to understand the rules as they clearly need some explaining, but it's how I'd go about it in a logical way and also to keep the fun in the game.



#11 xBeakeRx

xBeakeRx

    Member

  • Members
  • 200 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 07:19 AM

It's been a while since I've played Dust Warfare, and I've only played once, but if I remember correctly, aircraft must make a normal straight move at the beginning of their turn (compulsory move), before taking their normal action.  The exception to that rule is aircraft with the "hover" rule.  Now, I may be wrong there, I don't have the rulebook in front of me (working currently), but if we're assuming the same logic between both game systems, I would assume the intention was for aircraft to actually move ahead before performing an action in Tactics (and not simply moving back and forth and staying in the same spot).

With these assumptions in mind, I would say an aircraft without the hover rule must move up to their maximum movement range straight ahead, or can make one 90 degree turn during their movement.  To me, this seems like the most logical way to handle aircraft movement.



#12 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 07:47 AM

That's a lot of assumptions, specially in trying to apply a Warfare mentality to Tactics.

"Straight ahead" or "90 degrees" are concepts alien to tactics, where there is no facing.

Going by the rules as written, the Move action doesn't need to take place before the Attack action. All it says is "Every flying unit must at least make one MOVE action every round." Of course, there they go again mixing up "round" and "activation". According to those rules as written, an airplane that gets reactivated by a Command Squad wouldn't have to move, since it's already moved once this round.



#13 xBeakeRx

xBeakeRx

    Member

  • Members
  • 200 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:48 AM

Loophole Master said:

That's a lot of assumptions, specially in trying to apply a Warfare mentality to Tactics.

Right, but I was merely comparing them since aircraft were foreign to each system and subsequently introduced at the same time, so I would hope there would be some sort of continuity between the two.  I guess if we're looking at this from a purely "game" standpoint, you could go with the "move 1 space forward, one space backward" thought process and you have technically "moved" for the turn.  From a logical standpoint, that does not make sense to me, I would prefer a rule that said aircraft must move at least once during each activation and cannot end their turn in the same spot that they begin.



#14 Lska

Lska

    Member

  • Members
  • 487 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:09 PM

Logic and dust don't go along too good.

Also warfare and tactics are so much diffrent i don't think looking at each other can help solve any problems:D



#15 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:43 PM

xBeakeRx said:

I would prefer a rule that said aircraft must move at least once during each activation and cannot end their turn in the same spot that they begin.

Yeah, until someone says otherwise, that's how I'm ruling it.



#16 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:10 PM

Lska said:

Logic and dust don't go along too good.

Also warfare and tactics are so much diffrent i don't think looking at each other can help solve any problems:D

Thats right, the rules are polar opposite if anything, whatever it says in warfare the opposite is true in tactics.



#17 Fenton

Fenton

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 06:40 AM

I thought maybe the airpower without "Hover" would have to yake the movement forward for the sake of "realism" (although I know there are already several rules that fly in the face if this, and Dust Tactics seems to igbore facing entirely up to the introduction of "Two-Space Vehicles) and that the Allied aircraft might not even be allowed to move backward at all(as they appear to be not be VTOL like the German jets), but the FAQ 1.7 on page 3 clearly shows legal moves for the "Bellowing Bertie" going backwards.  So I guess all the Dust airctraft can change directions without stopping or slowing down.



#18 Lska

Lska

    Member

  • Members
  • 487 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:47 AM

I guess that facing or changing speed ar anything like that would mess too much with dst simplicity. The simple rules we have now already create a lot of confussion and stress between players.



#19 Miah999

Miah999

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,143 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:58 PM

Fenton said:

I thought maybe the airpower without "Hover" would have to yake the movement forward for the sake of "realism" (although I know there are already several rules that fly in the face if this, and Dust Tactics seems to igbore facing entirely up to the introduction of "Two-Space Vehicles) and that the Allied aircraft might not even be allowed to move backward at all(as they appear to be not be VTOL like the German jets), but the FAQ 1.7 on page 3 clearly shows legal moves for the "Bellowing Bertie" going backwards.  So I guess all the Dust airctraft can change directions without stopping or slowing down.

Of course a plane with engines that big can change direction without turning left or right, it's called an Immelman Turn/Loop. : )






© 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