Gravitic Shifter Question

[Methos5000]

I don't have my books with me right now but if I recall correctly the Gravitic Shifter uses opposed CQ checks to see if the shifter works correctly. So concerning the new rules the Brakiri get does their new skirmish level Gravitic Shifter ship need to succeed in 2 CQ checks to get the damage or is it just one check since it is coming from the same ship?

Also though not very practical how does work against fighters? It does have some potential use against Nials for example but fighters don't have CQ so for purposes of this would the fighters have CQ 4, would they automatically be hit or does this rule not work on fighters?

 

[H]

I "believe" that the CQ check is only to see if the ship is shifted, the damage is still done without said CQ checks involved

 

[Greg Smith]

It does not work against fighters.

There is no purpose in moving a fighter, since their facing dioes not matter.

Also getting two shifters onto a fighter will not kill it. Fighters do not have a damage score, so d6 damage will not affect them. Fighters require a Hit to destroy them and the shifter does not inflict hits.

 

[Triggy]

It does not work against fighters.

There is no purpose in moving a fighter, since their facing dioes not matter.

Also getting two shifters onto a fighter will not kill it. Fighters do not have a damage score, so d6 damage will not affect them. Fighters require a Hit to destroy them and the shifter does not inflict hits.

I'm not saying that you can do this but technically there can be a purpose in rotating a fighter - you can make the pointy corner of their base either point toward you or away from you depending on whether you want them to come into range (stealth, AF) or out of range (weapons, stem contact)

 

[H]

It does not work against fighters.

There is no purpose in moving a fighter, since their facing dioes not matter.

Also getting two shifters onto a fighter will not kill it. Fighters do not have a damage score, so d6 damage will not affect them. Fighters require a Hit to destroy them and the shifter does not inflict hits.

I'm not saying that you can do this but technically there can be a purpose in rotating a fighter - you can make the pointy corner of their base either point toward you or away from you depending on whether you want them to come into range (stealth, AF) or out of range (weapons, stem contact)

if I see anyone trying such a small picky maneuvre i'll be all growly and sarcastic with them! and I'll blame you!!

 

[Triggy]

Well it's a good thing that players aren't allowed to do it then

However, does it worry anyone that I managed to come up with these sorts of ideas?....

 

[tneva82]

Well it's a good thing that players aren't allowed to do it then

However, does it worry anyone that I managed to come up with these sorts of ideas?....

Hey. After finding out fellows who think it's quite legimate to base necron scarabs in 20" long and 40mm wide bases, deploy them sideway and then on their turn turn the scarab(or whatever that big heavy support monster was) 90 degrees so their base is almost on opponents deployment zone(and before turn base aparantly intervenes with LOS to army behind it...) allowing first turn charge just like that NOTHING worries me anymore ;-)

Or howabout another bright idea that somebody got allowing warmachines to shoot out of combat since rules seems to prevent only MISSILE weapons which don't include warmachines and nothing in WARMACHINE rules prevent it. Nevermind how cannon could shoot by itself that's how some fellows interpreted it.

Compared to those yours is mild

 

[Triggy]

True, I've seen similar incidents too such as 40k games where players can bring their own terrain, randomly scattered and each piece no bigger than 144 square inches. Some took this as being able to deploy [multiple] table width woods only 1" deep to prevent LOS and slow any movement. Needless to say, this helped their flying 'Nid hand-to-hand horde.

Another one was placing a few pieces of woods that were perfectly shaped to fit a Basilisk in (and prevent LOS from any direction). Made me happy though when my Wolf Scouts came up behind him and he couldn't shoot them back with his heavy bolter either before they melta bombed his ass

 

[tneva82]

True, I've seen similar incidents too such as 40k games where players can bring their own terrain, randomly scattered and each piece no bigger than 144 square inches. Some took this as being able to deploy [multiple] table width woods only 1" deep to prevent LOS and slow any movement. Needless to say, this helped their flying 'Nid hand-to-hand horde.

Owww that's new. Luckily here terrain is specified generally as 12" diameter(I suppose that 144 comes from 12x12).

Myself the more I read FB/40k forums the more I appreciate rules which are as clear as possible. Running into one of these fellows is otherwise way too annoying.

Or RPG's. There GM's word is The Law ;-)

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

Or howabout another bright idea that somebody got allowing warmachines to shoot out of combat since rules seems to prevent only MISSILE weapons which don't include warmachines and nothing in WARMACHINE rules prevent it. Nevermind how cannon could shoot by itself that's how some fellows interpreted it.

That's quite possibly the most horribly munchkin interpretation of rules I've ever seen...

 

[Triggy]

All of this makes it all the more frustrating when you are certain of a rule and your opponent disputes it but even with the rulebook in front of you, they call in a referee and they don't get it as well so ask for you to dice for it.

e.g. 40k, hand to hand combat. I have my four man squad in a line, power fist guy in base to base with a dreadnought and my other men in a direct line away from him, all touching each other's base. Dreadnought kills three men and I nominate the 2nd, 3rd and 4th men in a line from the dread (leaving the power fist alive). I say I can do this as the kill zone is 2" and the base diameter is 25mm each (a tiny fraction less than 1" each). Therefore the 4th man is in range.

The opponent disagrees, stating that he can't measure it accurately enough so it shouldn't count, but I state the maths are irrefutable. It's annoying I know but there was no physical way I could be wrong and the opponent still disagreed. Needless to say, he won the dice off, I couldn't kill the dreadnought with anything else in my army (in close combat) and lost the game by a very small margin :evil:

 

[tneva82]

Or howabout another bright idea that somebody got allowing warmachines to shoot out of combat since rules seems to prevent only MISSILE weapons which don't include warmachines and nothing in WARMACHINE rules prevent it. Nevermind how cannon could shoot by itself that's how some fellows interpreted it.

That's quite possibly the most horribly munchkin interpretation of rules I've ever seen...

In that case don't learn finnish and go to finnish/40k forums. We are VERY good at finding loopholes to exploit :twisted:

Every game design studio should hire one or two expert loophole spotters from finland. Games would be much more sound and secure afterwards :lol:

 

[Joe_Dracos]

exploitation of grey area's and loops holes is just another fassion of "Rules Laywering"... and that makes me commit multiple homicides. :x :x :x :x :x :x

 

[Clanger]

I think it is very very anal that if bases are 25mm and damage ranges are 25.4mm, that some one would argue it re hitting etc. Being anal over .4 of a mm is laughable and sad to be honest.

 

[Triggy]

I think it is very very anal that if bases are 25mm and damage ranges are 25.4mm, that some one would argue it re hitting etc. Being anal over .4 of a mm is laughable and sad to be honest.

The trouble is it decided the whole game (and was obvious that it would do so at that point). In this sort of situation does either player want to simply give up the game? This isn't rules lawyering, this is two people debating a distance and one has absolute proof of the distance.

Also, who are you calling anal? Me for bringing it up (a mathematical certainty) or him for contesting it (as it's almost small to accurately measure)? And you're right, it is anal but how often in wargames do you see two people disagreeing over facts? Quite often actually.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

I didn't say that you were anal....

I would have been frustrated by the application of math over what I can actually see.... That was just very poor judgement on your part (whether or not you were right... which mathmatically you were). People will always trust in there own senses over math any day of the week. You would have been much better off pilling them in a little closer (and you should have, cause people will trust the 1/4 inch over .4mm anyday). A measurement that small is just... pointless to argue and does nothing except make the game more frustrating (I'm speaking from experience here). I'd have to side with your opponent over that.

But that is just my own humble oppinion.

 

[AdrianH]

Another point is that while that "mathematical certainty" may be true in theory, there may be manufacturing tolerances - the bases might not be exactly 25.00mm diameter (especially if they've been painted). Or the table might not be exactly flat.

I also sometimes rely on maths while positioning my Shadow Scouts to take full advantage of their forward arcs, trying to place them so that an enemy ship which has yet to move can't get out of their arcs. For example, a target has a normal move of 6" and is lumbering. Allowing for special actions, it could move anywhere between 0" and 9" straight ahead. If I put a Scout exactly 4.5" ahead and to one side, it's a mathematical certainty that the target will be within 45 degrees of straight ahead. But, although I've marked diagonal lines on the Scouts' bases to help check alignment, I'll usually leave a little room for error, e.g. put the Scout 4.5" ahead and maybe 4.75" to the side of the target.

Meanwhile, back to grav shifters, which are a good reason for using counters for fighters. Official counters, at least, have little red dots marking the centre. For a capital ship, that represents the stem of a model; for a fighter, it's a measurement point which can't be affected by a grav shifter.

If you want to abuse the rules in ACTA, try letting off an energy mine next to a dogfight. You're not allowed to fire at fighters in a dogfight, but energy mines don't target ships - you're firing at a point in space which just happens to be near a dogfight. A Narn whose Frazis have just taken a pasting from some Sentris would probably find this amusing. :twisted:

 

[Greg Smith]

For a capital ship, that represents the stem of a model; for a fighter, it's a measurement point which can't be affected by a grav shifter.

Except that you measure distances to fighter edges.

 

[Triggy]

I didn't say that you were anal....

I would have been frustrated by the application of math over what I can actually see.... That was just very poor judgement on your part (whether or not you were right... which mathmatically you were). People will always trust in there own senses over math any day of the week. You would have been much better off pilling them in a little closer (and you should have, cause people will trust the 1/4 inch over .4mm anyday). A measurement that small is just... pointless to argue and does nothing except make the game more frustrating (I'm speaking from experience here). I'd have to side with your opponent over that.

But that is just my own humble oppinion.

Unfortunately the situation arose because they started the game base to base (packed in cover) and charged forwards as far as possible each turn. When his Dreadnought charged (therefore not allowing me to pile in at all), he'd positioned it just so, so that as few of my men as possible were in range. When he fluked out and all three of his attacks hit and killed men he thought he'd hit the jackpot.

As an aside, I actually measured the bases too and you could clearly see an overlap of about 1/32" (theoretically 1.2mm) but he disagreed with this too. :roll:

Actually what really got me was not that the opponent disagreed (as you say, some players don't like numbers and logic but equally many do like to crunch the numbers...) but that the ref didn't even listen to the facts either person presented, he just said roll a d6 for it. They don't do that now at GW events, with the high level of competition now, they actually try to get the rules right before they resort to a d6.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Actually what really got me was not that the opponent disagreed (as you say, some players don't like numbers and logic but equally many do like to crunch the numbers...) but that the ref didn't even listen to the facts either person presented, he just said roll a d6 for it. They don't do that now at GW events, with the high level of competition now, they actually try to get the rules right before they resort to a d6.

Well at least your ref made a ruling. When I was playing 40k the local ref did absolutely nothing to solve my issues. . He just shrugged his shoulder and said "I don't know". Well... thats an overgeneralization.

*sigh* I miss 40k