All power to engines??
- Thread starter Kosh127
- Start date
Shadow Queen
Mongoose
Ask Matt or one of the play testers, unless one or more is here and they must of given the answer by now.
Kosh127 said:
No. APTE says no turns may be made. A gravity well turn may be different (I do not have the rules on hand for specific wording).
Supermanueverable ships have a facing because they have weapon arcs. Fighters technically have a facing because they have a weapon arc, even though the weapon arcs are all Turret as of the current edition. Asteroids and planets are objects on the field of play that do not have weapon arcs, and therefore have no facing (they are also not ships or fighters). Ergo, logic says that any piece on the field that is a ship or fighter has a facing of some kind.
Supermanueverable is a turn because the trait is listed in the Turns section of a ship profile.
theres also the fact that fighters with afterburners can APTE, and still make as many turns as they like.
but the Vree i am suggesting are not turning, so not outside the limits of the SA. the SA doesnt say you have to move forward anywhere in its text. theres also the fact that in the movement rules every ship must move between half and full speed except those that are SM so this could result in a Vree saucer not moving whilst CAFing too. which you also objected to.
but the Vree i am suggesting are not turning, so not outside the limits of the SA. the SA doesnt say you have to move forward anywhere in its text. theres also the fact that in the movement rules every ship must move between half and full speed except those that are SM so this could result in a Vree saucer not moving whilst CAFing too. which you also objected to.
katadder said:
For the purposes of arguing whether a ship proper (not fighters, which have a separate set of rules) can turn if it is super manueverable and make turns during a APTE special action, it would be a turn.
Hm. I sense paradox in the rules. Which rule takes precedent? Super Manueverable (Ship Traits in general, really), or the Special Action rules?
not arguing if a SM ship can turn, have never debated this, it would still have to mvoe in a straight line.
the argument is that a SM ship can move in any direction it wishes, without changing its facing, so therefore could move sideways/backwards on CAF as long as its facing doesnt change.
the argument is that a SM ship can move in any direction it wishes, without changing its facing, so therefore could move sideways/backwards on CAF as long as its facing doesnt change.
In the figthers section about afterburns acting as APTE it states very specificaly that they can still turn whilst do this.
There is nothing in SM rules that states they can do this and use special actions that prohibit turning. In the abscence of a rule saying they can I think you have to accept the rule that say that they can't.
There is nothing in SM rules that states they can do this and use special actions that prohibit turning. In the abscence of a rule saying they can I think you have to accept the rule that say that they can't.
you dont get it though do you? i know they cannot turn - but they can move any direction they want as long as they keep facing the same way. this is a rule of SM ships. they may move in any direction. the no turning is the restriction from the SA, not that you have to move foreward, so they can move sideways/backwards as long as they still face the same direction which with no turns also means it would be in a straight line. although in theory they could move 2" right and 2" back and that would be no turns either, or even 2" diaganoly right/back.
in the absence of a rule saying that SM ships cant move any direction they like, when there is a ruling saying this then you can play moving in any direction, as this is the movement rules for SM ships. the movement isnt restricted by SAs in the slightest, just the turning.
in the absence of a rule saying that SM ships cant move any direction they like, when there is a ruling saying this then you can play moving in any direction, as this is the movement rules for SM ships. the movement isnt restricted by SAs in the slightest, just the turning.
Sorry but I refer you back to
The Turns rating of SM stands for Super Manoeuvrable.
Reading this I think using SM counts as turning, whether or not the ship actually changes its facing is irrelevant, as simply by going SM you are using the ships engines to give you greater manouvrability (hence the term SM) this precludes it from using any SA that requires the ship not to make any turns. (eating and typing posts is too much for me to do intelligfently)
The Turns rating of SM stands for Super Manoeuvrable.
Reading this I think using SM counts as turning, whether or not the ship actually changes its facing is irrelevant, as simply by going SM you are using the ships engines to give you greater manouvrability (hence the term SM) this precludes it from using any SA that requires the ship not to make any turns. (eating and typing posts is too much for me to do intelligfently)
lol the answer is there all along in armageddon FAQ.
CAF
SM ships use this SA normally. They may only travel forward in a straight line while doing so or not moving at all.
So i was wrong on the can move sideways/backwards bit. But was right on the not moving and CAFing bit. effectively an all stop/CAf combo.
although it feels right to me that they should be able to move sideways. but there we have it.
CAF
SM ships use this SA normally. They may only travel forward in a straight line while doing so or not moving at all.
So i was wrong on the can move sideways/backwards bit. But was right on the not moving and CAFing bit. effectively an all stop/CAf combo.
although it feels right to me that they should be able to move sideways. but there we have it.
Sorry looking under Special Traits page 16-18 in the revised ACTA rule book I can't find any mention of Super Manouvrability. It does mention that in SFoS that the Vree ships do gain the SM trait, but I can't find any description of said trait. The only mention of how SM works I can find is the bit I mentioned and quoted before.
