|
|
Post by paradox on Aug 28, 2013 18:47:37 GMT -5
Played a refresh game with Ogre today and we came up with some questions. Some might be pretty obvious answers, but we could not find them while playing. The book is not terribly clear on many points, and seems to use "model" and "model or team" interchangeably, which is un-good for clarity.
Mixed in with the questions are some things we believe we got right, but wanted to clarify.
Nerve Tests
When a model take damaged from ranged attacks must make a suppression check (pg45). We assumed that this meant that only that model could be suppressed if it failed and not the whole unit because it only says "models."
Suppressing Fire (pg44) causes all "models" in the arc and range to make a suppression check. In the next paragraph it refers to "models or teams" that are suppressed. If you have a team and some models are in the suppressing fire and some are not, does the whole team get suppressed if a single check is failed? If so, do you just make one check, regardless of models? Or does each model in the team test individually?
Unfortunately, the inconsistent use of "models" and "models or teams" means this is completely unclear from the rules.
Spotting Hidden Models
(pg 40) This rule refers only to "models" for the most part. Then midway through the paragraph it refers to "spotted models or teams." If a team is hidden and some are in spotting range while others are not, is the whole team spotted, regardless or range, or only the models in range?
Again, inconsistent usage renders the rules unclear.
Hacking Enemy Models
(pg53) If, for example, a Yuurei uses her board to remote hack a CSO Stomper, does she have to keep the Stomper within range of her board (14" in this case) to maintain control? If so, what happens if it leaves that area?
What happens if she is suppressed?
What happens if she is stunned?
What happens if she panics and flees?
What happens if she dies?
Can the CSO player attempt to regain control of the Stomper if he has no Field Engineer or other model capable of hacking in play?
Melee
Can you enter melee without charging? Ie, can you move or run into melee range? We assumed yes.
Melee with elevated models: The Quick Reference on pg 80 refers to "Attacking an elevated model in CCA." Pg 47, in Ranged Combat, says elevation is 3"+ in height. If a model is standing on a low building about 2" in height, can an enemy model on the ground attack that model? Assume the attacker has normal melee range of 1/2". If so, is that model "elevated" even if it is not 3" off the ground? If not, then is it safe to assume that melee extends 1/2" out from a model horizontally, but it can got vertically up to 2.99"?
If "elevated" for melee means something different than it does for ranged, where do we find these rules?
Moving/Jumping Down
When you want to move down, say from the roof of a 2" tall building to the ground, can you jump down? Is that a SAG test? What target number? Or is it simply a fall, or do you climb down?
|
|
|
|
Post by ogre44 on Aug 28, 2013 19:11:05 GMT -5
I checked the FAQ real quick after our game.
Suppression Fire effects the entire team, even if only 1 model is in range.
Also, Chris' Yurrei hacked my Stomper, is it correct that the Stomper never gets a chance to break the hack?
Does the Yurrei have to remain within her board's range of the Stomper?
If the Yurrei is killed is the Stomper freed?
There is no Hack level listed for the Stomper, we played it as an Aggressive test so it was an opposed roll, should there have been a Target Number for the Yurrei as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by GrumpyMonkey on Aug 28, 2013 22:14:43 GMT -5
I am sure Tom will correct or verify this but lets give it a shot.
Nerve Tests: You did this right, Suppressing Fire is a option for auto weapons, you can choose to do suppressing fire. There is no roll for damage only for jam/critical success. So in your example you were correct, you are taking a suppression check because you took damage. The model that shot your model was not using suppressing fire (at least how I understand it)
Spotting Hidden Models: Not sure I will check with Tony
Hacking Enemy Models
What happens if she is suppressed? - Will check but I believe nothing control remains
What happens if she is stunned? - Will check but I believe nothing control remains
What happens if she panics and flees? - once outside the boards range, the stomper is no longer hacked
What happens if she dies? - stomper is no longer hacked.
Melee: Yes you can walk into CC, you just lose your bonus.
For Ogre's questions
Also, Chris' Yurrei hacked my Stomper, is it correct that the Stomper never gets a chance to break the hack? - Correct
Does the Yurrei have to remain within her board's range of the Stomper? Yes
If the Yurrei is killed is the Stomper freed? Yes
There is no Hack level listed for the Stomper, we played it as an Aggressive test so it was an opposed roll, should there have been a Target Number for the Yurrei as well? There is not a target number to also beat, however; i aggressive system should also have a "systems attribute" designated or agreed upon before the game. That system attribute is added to the stompers opposed roll (p53, item 3)
I will ping Tony on the above questions
-Shawn
|
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Aug 31, 2013 12:36:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by GrumpyMonkey on Aug 31, 2013 18:57:14 GMT -5
Reading up on the rules again, and I have to agree with Gimp.
He is correct in that during the control phase the Stomper has the change to gain control back. While you may not have a hacker, the AI will try to gain control back of the systems. As you put it, you are trying to apply real life logic to this.
|
|
|
|
Post by pickles on Sept 1, 2013 6:23:56 GMT -5
....you are trying to apply real life logic to this. Unfortunately, that's where we make alot of rule mistakes.  |
|
|
|
Post by ogre44 on Sept 1, 2013 6:42:39 GMT -5
What's funny is that over on the Aberrant forums, Gimp's response was that 'Dox WASN'T applying real-life logic to the rules  Here's another question: If a medic heals a dead model, but the model's damage gauge is still on a negative box after the d3 roll, does the model then have to make a roll to see if he dies or is stunned? |
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Sept 1, 2013 8:43:02 GMT -5
Reading up on the rules again, and I have to agree with Gimp. He is correct in that during the control phase the Stomper has the change to gain control back. While you may not have a hacker, the AI will try to gain control back of the systems. As you put it, you are trying to apply real life logic to this. What Ogre said. Gimp claims that it's common sense. My common sense says the reverse of Gimps. Plus, the rules say you need a board to remote access. The Stomper has no board, plus it's hacked. How is it able to hack itself back remotely without a board? Also, to take over the Stomper, my Yuurei could NOT use her HAK score, only her board bonus, vs the Stompers NRV of 5. That was a huge risk. And remote access says you do not get to use your score. So because the Stomper uses NRV in that test and has no board (see how dumb this is) when it remote accesses itself back, does it just roll 2D6 and add 0? Because it has no board, and only your board bonus can be added to the remote access test. Finally, a hacked model "becomes part of my crew." So common sense says that it would not try to re-hack itself because it's now my model. That whole section is terribly written, but you can't tell them that. Saying " Just use common sense!" is probably the worst thing possible for the game. Leaving holes in the rules for players to fill in is lazy and dumb. But I'm guessing we can come up with solutions. |
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Sept 1, 2013 11:05:12 GMT -5
So out of curiosity, how many points are we playing in September? Is there a usual size game?
|
|
|
|
Post by ogre44 on Sept 1, 2013 11:28:22 GMT -5
Well, it was hard to squeeze in a good selection of forces with only 500 points.
I want to say that we used to regularly play 750 point games, so I would vote for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by GrumpyMonkey on Sept 1, 2013 19:42:36 GMT -5
750 is good, anything lower and the CSO kinda suck more than normal
|
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Sept 2, 2013 12:33:48 GMT -5
Coming back to the hacking issue, I've re-read the rules again and I'm sure that Ogre and I did it right and that Gimp is wrong.
All pertinent rules are on Pg 53, under Remote Access.
Remote Access
To remote access, the model must have a board and be within its transmission range. The model cannot add its Hack attribute to the test, but gets to add its board rating or use any program it has to affect the outcome.
If you are attempting to hack an opponent's model use the target's NRV as the basis for an opposed test.
If the attack fails, use the defending model's NRV as the amount of damage dice.
The only models that may be hacked by remote access are those classified as bots or cyborgs on their data cards.
If you succeed in remote accessing a model, you may immediately take a turn with it and it is now considered one of your crew. You may voluntarily relinquish control of the model during the control phase, but if you do not wish to do so, an opposed remote access test may be made by your opponent to remove you from the system. If he is successful, NO damage is done to your model, but it reverts to his control.
You cannot attempt to attack an opponent's hacker model by remote access if they are not on the Grid or hacking another model or system.
So, first I need a valid target: any bot or cyborg that is not a hacker model not on the Grid or accessing a model or system. A Stomper is such a model.
Next, I need to be able to remote access. This requires a board, and the board needs to be in transmission range of the target. A Yuurei's board range is 14".
Now we test. I roll 2D6 + board bonuses or program bonuses. A Yuurei's board is +2 and no other programs are relevant to this discussion. The target rolls 2D6 + NRV. A Stomper has NRV of 5.
If I succeed (NOTE: these rules never state if success means equaling the opposed roll or beating it. But it does note that damage is the same as Grid combat, so I assume I need to beat, and if we equal, then we both take D6) then the target is in my crew and activate immediately.
If I fail, I take the target's NRV X D6 in a damage roll.
Once the target is mine, I can relinquish control in the following Control Phase. If I do not, the opponent can attempt to boot me by AN OPPOSED REMOTE ACCESS TEST. Recall that a remote access test requires the player to have a model with a board in range of the target.
If there is no model with a board in range of the target, no remote access test may be made, per the plain rules.
So once I hack an enemy model, the enemy needs a model with a board in range to boot me out.
Another unclear point is hacking enemy hackers. Yuureis, Ghosts, and Wraiths are cyborgs. However, the rules say that you cannot attack an enemy hacker with remote access unless they are on the Grid or accessing a model or system. Whether "attack" means "hack" is never discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ogre44 on Sept 2, 2013 14:04:38 GMT -5
What Gimp is arguing is that the line in question says that you either give up control, or that you have to test to maintain control.
I agree that the line is poorly written but the only models you could hack that have boards are other hackers, no bot or system has a remote board and therefore they could never free themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by paradox on Sept 2, 2013 14:27:24 GMT -5
What Gimp is arguing is that the line in question says that you either give up control, or that you have to test to maintain control. I agree that the line is poorly written but the only models you could hack that have boards are other hackers, no bot or system has a remote board and therefore they could never free themselves. What Gimp is ignoring is the clear, express words that tell you that the test in question is an opposed remote access test. A remote access test requires a model with a board in transmission range of the target to make the attack. In this case, the rules are quite clear and express. There is no room for interpretation, and Gimp's answer simply reads the express words out of the rules. That is unacceptable. Common sense does not allow you to ignore the rules. It is apparent from the face of the rules that Aberrant intended crews to have hacker models. If they meant that bots or non-hacker cyborgs should be able to wrest back control of themselves, then they royally fucked up because the words they wrote clearly say the exact opposite. Further, the rules DO NOT require the target to have a board, only the attacker. So I'm not sure what your last point is getting at. |
|
