Aircraft Rules Interpretation - right or wrong?

[PercyHobart]

Having played the new aircraft rules on the weekend and having had them used against me in one game, I'm not so sure the my opponent had the right idea for their application.

My initial understanding was that the aircraft could only fire in the row of hexes directly in front of it's nose but it appears I was wrong on that count - anything withing the 'forward' hexes is in range.

The bit that really got me was when the guy targeted my unit in the left forward hex of his range and then told me that I couldn't return fire because I wasn't in the row of hexes directly in front of the nose.

I would have thought that if aircraft have sprinkler-like forward-firing arcs any ground unit in that arc counted as 'facing' and therefore did not suffer the -1 modifier. I went and read the rule again and I believe I'm right on my interpretation and that maybe we didn't have the rule described to us beforehand adequately.

My army choice would have led to defeat in the end but certainly not to the extent suffered, especially since in one attack there were four of my units in that forward arc but either side of the "nose" hex.

Looking forward to your responses.

[Latro]

Since there's no official and exact wording for the hypothetical new AA-rule yet, it's not a case for using the letter of the law. The newrule they're suggesting gives any unit (without AA) that's not directly in the line of the attack an extra -1 to hit ... which means the hex-row coming straight from the nose of the plane.

And yes, this also implies that the plane will have to face its target. It's no use claiming (as your opponent did) that the rule doesn't say that black on white ... because the rule hasn't even been written yet.

Hope that helps a bit.


:cool:

[Cpt. John Miller]

well der lieter already broke this down in his playtest thread and he said that this new rule makes the planes impossible to shoot down if you don't have any AA. The problem is that only units in the facing hex row can fire at the plane without accrueing another -1, but the plane can shoot in any direction. This makes it very easy for the plane to avoid ground fire, and can harrass at will the entire game.

A better idea was posted that units without AA can only manage disruption of planes. Scrap the new airplane rules, they further unbalance the airplane problem.

[polish_horsy]

actually planes can fire backwards, sideways, or any direction.

[Latro]

actually planes can fire backwards, sideways, or any direction.

If you really think that the actual wording will turn out to be like that with the new rule, feel free to play it that way ... I think playing it to the letter of the rule is pointless if the new rule hasn't actually been worded yet though.

I'm betting planes will have to face their target, so that's how I will be testing it.


:cool:

[Cpt. John Miller]

If you really think that the actual wording will turn out to be like that with the new rule, feel free to play it that way ... I think playing it to the letter of the rule is pointless if the new rule hasn't actually been worded yet though.

I'm betting planes will have to face their target, so that's how I will be testing it.

I should hope so. Planes don't have turrets after all.;)

[polish_horsy]

how would you be able to stop a plane dropping right behind yours and killing it? would you get defensive fire? If not going first could be plane suicide.

[Latro]

how would you be able to stop a plane dropping right behind yours and killing it? would you get defensive fire? If not going first could be plane suicide.

Isn't it obvious? The answer to that would be:

A. the facing only counts for attacking ground targets
B. they'll think of some funky extra new rule to fix that
C. planes need to be nerfed anyway

or

D. forget about it ... 't was a silly rule to begin with


:D

[PercyHobart]

Since there's no official and exact wording for the hypothetical new AA-rule yet, it's not a case for using the letter of the law. The newrule they're suggesting gives any unit (without AA) that's not directly in the line of the attack an extra -1 to hit ... which means the hex-row coming straight from the nose of the plane.

And yes, this also implies that the plane will have to face its target. It's no use claiming (as your opponent did) that the rule doesn't say that black on white ... because the rule hasn't even been written yet.

Hope that helps a bit.


:cool:

Now that's how I initially understood the proposal - fire along the row of 'nose' hexes only and only those non-AA units in that row have the 'standard' non-AA modifier.

I also thought that our organiser introduced the rule without getting a consensus from all on how it should be played..

[PercyHobart]

actually planes can fire backwards, sideways, or any direction.

Ahhhh... so that's 'sprinkler-fire'... either they're capable of spinning like a ball on the spot or they're all kitted out like B-17s... :D

[Richter von Manthofen]

Giving the Planes a facing is necessary IMHO. And planes should then being allowed to fire only in a certain forward arc with their fixed weapons. Ground fire within this arc should only get the standard -1 modifier (if you can hurt me then I can hurt you)

Problem of other planes attacking a placed plane. I would say If an enemy plane is placed after your own you should be allowed to change your facing and then attack that plane with an -1 modifier to each die (you abort your ground attack and face the new enemy)

Some planes had a tail Gunner (like the Stuka) those planes should be allowed to fire at the attacking plane without having to change facing (and not getting the -1 modifier)

[PercyHobart]

Richter von Manthofen,

Your location description is great!
We had similar misguided enquiries prior to the 2004 Olympics...
"I'm sorry Madam. Australia isn't that little ski-resort place next to Germany..."

Beware the Drop-Bear !!! :eek: