| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 192
|
|
|
Post subject: Halifax, only Sixes are HITS or only Sixes are SUCCESSES ?
|
 |
|
May have been playing the Halifax wrongly. I've been only counting the 6's as SUCCESSes, so on a battleship you might need 4 rolls of 6, for example, to get a HIT. Concluded the Halifax was death on destroyers, but not impressive against other ship types.
Then I read a thread in which it SOUNDED like the players were counting each 6 rolled as a HIT, same as for torpedos. This can't be correct, can it?
Chick
_________________
Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. |
|
 Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:07 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9267
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
You are playing correctly. Each 6 counts as two successes, as always. E.g it can damage Yamato only if it rolls 5 or more sixes.
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:26 pm |
|
|
Posts: 165
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Halifax, only Sixes are HITS or only Sixes are SUCCESSES
|
|
|
| chicklewis wrote: | | Concluded the Halifax was death on destroyers, but not impressive against other ship types. |
Read Halifax "High Level Bomber" SA:
"WHENEVER THIS UNIT MAKES A BOMB ATTACK, IT ONLY SCORES A HIT ON A 6. THIS UNIT CAN'T HIT DESTROYERS OR TORPEDO BOATS WITH BOMB ATTACKS"
Just another in the long list of U.K. units getting screwed with a negative SA.
Last edited by Delta Echo on Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:32 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9267
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Oh yes, didn't notice that you mentioned destroyers. As Delta Echo pointed out, you can't attack destroyers with a high-level bomber.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:36 pm |
|
|
Posts: 192
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks, Neural dream.
_________________
Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. |
|
| Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:48 am |
|
|
Has nothing to say.
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 3847
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
[rules lawyer]
Actually, this relates back to the Enterprise's "Survivor" SA that was officially clarified a while back due to confusion over hits and successes.
The number of 4s, 5s, and 6s rolled are added up as successes (per the rule book). If these success are equal to or greater than the armor, the unit takes on hit (also per the rule book).
It is impossible for a unit to suffer more than one hit from a bomb, ASW, or gunnery salvo. At least according to the official rules.
However, SAs trump rules, and so, according to the Halifax's SA, each 6 rolled essentially counts as a torpedo hit that does one point of damage (e.g. causes one hull point of damage, or one "hit"). Effectively, you can't hit ships with torpedo defense, but can murder everything else but torpedo boats and DDs.
Apparently, they decided to give the British a really really really good unit in disguise.
[/rules lawyer]
I know that none of us play this way, but if you interpret it strictly by what it says on the card, that's what comes up.
_________________
I have to make a new sig because my old one is too wide for this new look... |
|
| Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:31 am |
|
|
Posts: 591
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Ah, very interesting, the card does use the word "hit" instead of success. Being that this is a bomb attack, TD would not affect it, but for 6 points, 6s should be successes not hits.
This unit did seem to get the shaft, why not 3 ASW? Harass subs and use it to buff DD ASW attacks. Although, it can hit cruisers and carriers when the time is needed. This would be the time to have cruisers and carriers with 5 armor 
wilt57
_________________
 |
|
| Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:07 pm |
|
|
Posts: 185
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| wilt57 wrote: | | This unit did seem to get the shaft, why not 3 ASW? Harass subs and use it to buff DD ASW attacks. |
I think the text on the back of the card said something to the effect that they were never very good at sinking subs, but they did a good job reporting subs' positions to friendly surface fleets.
As for the hit vs success thing, I assume its yet another case of WotC "do as we mean, not as we say." Has anyone posted the question in their offical Q&A section yet? |
|
| Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:06 pm |
|
|
Posts: 165
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Aquarius wrote: | | However, SAs trump rules, and so, according to the Halifax's SA, each 6 rolled essentially counts as a torpedo hit that does one point of damage (e.g. causes one hull point of damage, or one "hit"). Effectively, you can't hit ships with torpedo defense, but can murder everything else but torpedo boats and DDs. |
Halifax doesn't have Torps, Its pretty explicit in the SA that this refers to Bombs.
I would have to agree with Wilt57 and Fellblade. There is no way WotC could have intended a 6pt bomber to be able to cause a possible 10 hits.
They had to have meant "only 6s count as successes." |
|
| Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:30 pm |
|
|
Has nothing to say.
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 3847
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Of course that's what they meant.
But it's not what the card says.
_________________
I have to make a new sig because my old one is too wide for this new look... |
|
| Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:22 am |
|
|
Posts: 125
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
That's interesting. I always played the Halifax (as most people I assume) with sixes counting as 2 successes. But the card does says that a six counts as a hit, which in WAS terms, is something totally different. And this makes the Halifax a much stronger unit.
Now I'm in doubt. Did I play it right while counting the sixes as successes, then their should be an erratta. Or did I play it wrong and then the Halifax will become a very popular unit from now on. (for a measly 6 points)
My feeling says the sixes should be successes, but the text on the card is clear.
What to do?
_________________
Amicis Inimicis Promptus
-----------------------------------------------------------
 |
|
| Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:28 am |
|
|
Posts: 192
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hard to believe I'm the first guy to bring up this example of dodgy editing.
_________________
Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. |
|
| Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:00 pm |
|
|
Has nothing to say.
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 3847
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Visio wrote: | My feeling says the sixes should be successes, but the text on the card is clear.
What to do? |
I'd play it with the 6s counting as 2 successes. Otherwise, you are likely to lose friends very quickly.
It is obviously supposed to be 2 successes, but that's not what WotC said.
_________________
I have to make a new sig because my old one is too wide for this new look... |
|
| Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:55 pm |
|
|
Posts: 165
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| chicklewis wrote: | | Hard to believe I'm the first guy to bring up this example of dodgy editing. |
As far as I know, you are.
I would expect some errata on this eventually.
Anyone post this one up over on Gleemax?
I'm not registed there but lurk from time to time. |
|
| Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:24 pm |
|
|
Has nothing to say.
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 3847
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I would, but I don't want to lose my 6 point superweapon of doom.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
lol
_________________
I have to make a new sig because my old one is too wide for this new look... |
|
| Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:27 am |
|
|
Kick Butt Kido Butai
Posts: 244
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Delta Echo wrote: | I would expect some errata on this eventually.
Anyone post this one up over on Gleemax? I'm not registed there but lurk from time to time. |
Fellblade posted the question on the Q&A along with a question about the B-25's strafing. No answer yet but there should be something tomorrow.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1152773
_________________
WaS: 64/64 (656)
WaS TF: 60/60 (511)
WaS FS: 40/40 (192)
WaS 2010 Starter 0/? - 19 Jan 10
WaS CZ: 0/40 (0) - 16 Mar 10
defender390's WaS Trade List |
|
| Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:46 pm |
|
|
Posts: 125
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I for one am really looking forward to the ruling. The other question in the same post concerning the strafing ability of the B-25 was also interesting.
_________________
Amicis Inimicis Promptus
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:14 pm |
|
|
Kick Butt Kido Butai
Posts: 244
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
The ruling has been posted:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1152773
| Quote: | The Halifax's Hi-Level Bomber SA should use this wording: "Whenever this unit makes a Bomb attack, it scores successes on 6s only. This unit can't attack Destroyers or Torpedo Boats with Bomb attacks." This has been added to the clarifications doc (dated 02/27/09).
The B-25 does not have the Expert Strafer SA, so if you use it to strafe a ship in the same sector, it will be easy to shoot down. When attacking a ship in the same sector, consider using its bombs instead. |
_________________
WaS: 64/64 (656)
WaS TF: 60/60 (511)
WaS FS: 40/40 (192)
WaS 2010 Starter 0/? - 19 Jan 10
WaS CZ: 0/40 (0) - 16 Mar 10
defender390's WaS Trade List |
|
| Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:22 am |
|
|
Posts: 125
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
So an errata it is. Good ruling.
_________________
Amicis Inimicis Promptus
-----------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Visio on Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:01 pm |
|
|
Posts: 591
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Who would want to use gunnery instead of bombs on the B-25 anyways? It would be a weaker attack. The strafing penalty wouldn't affect the B-25 too much as the only purpose would be range 1, in which fighters are most likely to intercept it, and the armor would still be a 4 in that case. Only the vital would change (but it would be a big change). Can't say I've much experience with this unit as the USN player in our group doesn't use it much. Is the strafing penalty a big problem that the B-25 faces? I find it silly that a bomber designed to strafe ships has to take a penalty, but WaS does wierd things that do not have to make sense.
wilt57
_________________
|
|
| Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:15 pm |
|
|
|
