Jump to content

Power of the Machine Spirit


Seahawk

Recommended Posts

Unless something else in the game gains the ability to Zoom. /shrug

 

A Flier that is Hovering isn't 'Hard to Hit'.

 

(And then we get into a Hovering Flier isn't a Flier, and only Fliers are Hard to Hit. /shrug  It's still no different to a Shaken Landraider.)

 

Case in point;

 

 

 

you always take snap shots at fliers, unless you have Skyfire. That rule is on fliers, not the shooting vehicle and is "always on".

 

You always take snap shots when you're shaken.  That rule is on the vehicle and is 'always on'.

 

When you're not Shaken, the rule is off.  When a Flier isn't Zooming, Hard to Hit is off.

 

So by that logic are invulnerable saves only on when they are being rolled for. So the shield-breaker shot from the vindicare has no effect as no inv save is on unless they foolishly use it.

SB doesn't work that way.

You lose any Invulnerable saves from wargear immediately and for the rest of the battle.

There's no trigger condition. They are just gone.

PFG, SS, Iron Halo, whatever. msn-wink.gif

A better example would be something like a Rip Tides ++, which it can activate or not.

A Shield Breaker would (there's a caveat...) stop the Riptide from activating the ++ after being hit by it, even if it wasn't currently active.

(Caveat. A Shield Breaker Round has no effect on a Riptides ++ save. As it's a 'Special Rule' and not a bit of Wargear...)

If it isn't swooping or zooming, then it is not a flyer.

 

It becomes a fast skimmer or just a MC.

 

In a normal shooting attack you have conditions which can modify your BS. Hard to hit is one of those conditions. If you don't have the counter rule, you suffer the condition.

 

 

In a normal shooting attack you have conditions which can modify your BS. Hard to hit is one of those conditions. If you don't have the counter rule, you suffer the condition.         

 

Yes.

 

Exactly like being Shaken.

Hard to Hit doesn't *require* a specific rule.

 

We have a specific rule that can negate it.

 

Much like we used to have a specific rule that could negate Shaken.

Actually, both versions of Hard To Hit specifically state that only Skyfire can bypass it. That's as specific a case as I can think of for requiring a special rule.

Here's the way I think it should work - in summary - for Land Raiders:

 

- Stationary: You may fire ALL weapons at BS4. One weapon may fire at a separate target to other weapons.

- Combat Speed: You may fire TWO weapons at BS4. One of these two may fire at a separate target to all other weapons. Any weapons fired beyond these two must make snap shots.

- Cruising Speed: You may fire ONE weapon at BS4, and this weapon may fire at a separate target to other weapons. Any other weapons fired must make snap shots.

- Shooting at Flyers: ALL weapons may only snap shoot, though one weapon may fire at a separate target to other weapons. If firing at a separate non-flyer target, however, this weapon fires at BS4.

- Shaken/Stunned: ALL weapons may only snap shoot, though one weapon may fire at a separate target to other weapons.

 

I don't really see POTMS as "modifying" a snap shot from BS1 to BS4 at all; due to POTMS, the chosen beneficent weapon is not making snap shots in the first instance.

Snap shots for the weapon benefiting from POTMS only come into play when shooting against flyers or when shaken/stunned. Under those circumstances all shooting is defined as snap shots, including the weapon benefiting from POTMS.

 

I think a better comparison than saying whether we are 'modifying snap shots or not' is to look at fast vehicles...no-one is suggesting they are having 'modified snap shots' - they simply can fire more weapons on the move at full BS than regular vehicles as standard, and essentially, POTMS is granting a similar firing advantage to regular vehicles.

The comparison holds for fast vehicles' shooting when stunned/shaken, or at flyers. Then, snap shots are clearly defined and come into play.

 

Otherwise, POTMS serves almost no function, which I don't believe is the intention. If allowing fire at a separate target was its sole purpose, I think the rule would be worded differently - or, Land Raiders et al. would just be given a variation of the Split Fire rule.

  • 5 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.