doganpc
|
New Smoke Screen replacing old? *spoileresque*Came across this,
Currently, units in concealment can still shoot at eachother but the concealment roll is 6 (5 or 6 if shooting into smoke, no shooting through it). With this, you cannot shoot another ship when both are in a smoke screen.
Another question, planes. can they target into/within smoke?
Dogan
second question old, can probably find it after posting this.
|
afilter
|
Good questions that will probably not be officially answered until after 1 Sep.
My gut tells me that the WoTC card editor let this slip through again and we will see an errata bringing it in line with the current smoke rules.
|
Duck Crusader
|
I'd say no for planes as well, as they're either in or next to the smoked hex. That's a pretty powerful SA for an 8 pt ship.
|
swarbs
|
This is the same text that was used for smoke screen in set II (see Hoel e.g.). That text was errataed in the clarifications document to this:
Instead of attacking during your Surface Attack phase, this unit can make a local smoke screen. The smoke screen takes effect immediately. Remove the smoke screen at the end of the next turn.
Surely the same errata applies to the exact same text in the same way that it did before. The stupid part of this is that they didn't correct it before now. I mean they had to go through so much trouble issuing the clarifications document and couldn't even get it right.
As for smoke, as long as the clarifications document stands (and it will), then aircraft attack and are attacked as normal within a smokescreen. You just add the save roll on a six.
|
afilter
|
| swarbs wrote: | This is the same text that was used for smoke screen in set II (see Hoel e.g.). That text was errataed in the clarifications document to this:
Instead of attacking during your Surface Attack phase, this unit can make a local smoke screen. The smoke screen takes effect immediately. Remove the smoke screen at the end of the next turn.
Surely the same errata applies to the exact same text in the same way that it did before. The stupid part of this is that they didn't correct it before now. I mean they had to go through so much trouble issuing the clarifications document and couldn't even get it right.
As for smoke, as long as the clarifications document stands (and it will), then aircraft attack and are attacked as normal within a smokescreen. You just add the save roll on a six. |
Yep, this is what I am thinking. Cannot believe the same error could get by in consecuetive sets. 
|
swarbs
|
| afilter wrote: | | swarbs wrote: | This is the same text that was used for smoke screen in set II (see Hoel e.g.). That text was errataed in the clarifications document to this:
Instead of attacking during your Surface Attack phase, this unit can make a local smoke screen. The smoke screen takes effect immediately. Remove the smoke screen at the end of the next turn.
Surely the same errata applies to the exact same text in the same way that it did before. The stupid part of this is that they didn't correct it before now. I mean they had to go through so much trouble issuing the clarifications document and couldn't even get it right.
As for smoke, as long as the clarifications document stands (and it will), then aircraft attack and are attacked as normal within a smokescreen. You just add the save roll on a six. |
Yep, this is what I am thinking. Cannot believe the same error could get by in consecuetive sets. |
Yeah, that's mildly disturbing at the very least.
There's some other wierd things too, or at least SA's that I don't really like.
For example, Mission Selection was actually clarified to occur during the air attack step, the new one has that parenthetical statement at the end which says different, so does that change the one from last set too in opposition to their ruling?
Why make an Unmask Guns SA when there's a nearly identical Masked Guns SA?
SA's like Fighter Director and Desperate AA and Shore Support and Aggressive Tactics seem a bit wordy to me, there must be more concise ways to phrase them.
Also, why did they waste a unit last set on a Kamikaze, when all along a Kamikaze SA just made so much more sense?
Perhaps, though, since SA's and rules-lawyering is part of my niche on this site I just get a bit too worked up about them.
|
The Tirpitz
|
Sharpshooter says that you must roll a 6 to make a cover roll. Bad Weather Fighter says that it adds one to the cover roll. Does this mean that you need to make a 5 with the cover to survive, not a 6? I know that's not the intent, but that's what it says.
|
wilt57
|
IIRC, cans trump can'ts. Sharpshooter essentially says you can't use a 5 for the save. Bad Weather Fighter says you can add 1 to the roll. I interpret it as Sharpshooter kicks off first and Bad Weather modifies it back to 5, where is would be 4 without Sharpshooter. I misread these rules a lot tho. 
wilt57
|
The Tirpitz
|
It's actually cant's trumps can's. And that's a weird rule because it isn't always followed. For instance, Graf Zeppelin says it can base Stukas, but Stuka says it can't base on a carrier. By rules, it can't, but it was clarified that it can.
|
afilter
|
Back to the smoke issue: someone pointed out in another thread that the verbage is from the AAM, SA. I am sure this will once again be clarified in errata.
|
defender390
|
| afilter wrote: | | Back to the smoke issue: someone pointed out in another thread that the verbage is from the AAM, SA. I am sure this will once again be clarified in errata. |
Yes - this is another one we'll have to add to the list of issues weeds suggested for the Q&A forum over at Gleemax. That's the only way we get attention to these issues formally so they're fixed. It just really sucks they made this mistake yet again after "hundreds" of posts on the issue over at Gleemax because of the Hoel & JCB last year.
|
doganpc
|
Stuff like this makes me want to play Victory at Sea.
*Stuff* The crossover use of AAM abilities and wording into WaS, the Armor creep, the inconsistent rules application, the unbalanced nature of factoring in manufacturing capabilities into a units point cost, and so on.
Dogan
disgruntled
|
afilter
|
| doganpc wrote: | Stuff like this makes me want to play Victory at Sea.
|
I bought both VaS and AoD while I was deployed, can't wait to give them a try. 
|
