Okay, so RAI the engagement shuffle happens when attackers are outnumbering defenders and "close enough".
1 could only fight 6.
4+5 could only fight 8.
Hmm, so ill probably need to make a per defender "for sure pool" consisting of attackers without options and another per defender "possible pool" of attackers that are within half an inch or so.
Attackers with options would get listed and when one is selected, its defender "for sure pool" options would pop up.
Clicking an option would allocate them into the "for sure pool" of their choice.
Repat for all attackers with options.
Highlight empty defender "for sure pools" and attackers that may be allocated to them before allowing assignment confirmation.
Then allow for running the regular one on one combat or the multiple on one mechanic ive already set up with the attackers from for sure pools against its owning defenders, as applicable.
I think thats a systematic enough way of breaking it down for a computer to understand.
Sometimes it can be more beneficial to throw a grenade at a point on the ground rather than at an enemy Warrior. This only really applies to grenades with Blast Markers. Aiming at a small Target like that is trickier (and counts as, well, a Small Target - as described earlier) and so is subject to a -1 to Hit Modifier. Other than that the shot is resolved as normal.
Can gangers lob grenades into areas they can not directly see?
Like for example when enemies are taking cover behind a low wall, is a ganger allowed throw a grenade aiming for it to land behind that bit of cover?
The ground there, from the perspective of the potential thrower, would be completely obscured.
From my understanding of RAW id say "No" but since the ganger can see the other gangers taking cover, its pretty likely that he would be able to intuit (not a strong skill among orks i know) that they are standing on something.
And while not written out in the GCE rules, one of the main use cases for fragmentation grenades is to hit stuff in exactly that way.
If I remember correctly, this was the intent of the original 40k in 2nd edition.
You can always target any spot you want in the ground, and if someone happens to be in the blast radius, so be it.
Just don't forget the -1 to hit when targeting the ground, and not a warrior.
It always seemed odd that the ground counts as a small target. It's massive!
(To be clear, the above is said in jest. I know that what you're really doing is targeting a specific point on the ground, rather than the ground in general.)
On targets you can't see, it does make sense to lob a grenade over a low wall or similar. But I'd be wary of writing the rules in such a way that you can target anything you can't see, in case there's no obvious route for the grenade.
This raises something that would probably need to be addressed anyway. Would range be measured in a straight line or 'up and over' in a curve? That latter - while perhaps more complicated - would presumably address concerns about what you can and can't throw a grenade over.
This raises something that would probably need to be addressed anyway. Would range be measured in a straight line or 'up and over' in a curve? That latter - while perhaps more complicated - would presumably address concerns about what you can and can't throw a grenade over.
The S calculated throw range probably isnt baseball pitcher type throws since that would be very hard for most Mobsters to do with stickbombs, while not written anywhere ive just always presumed it includes a bit of an arc for getting to a target.
So for lobbing behind stuff, i think there is already a reasonable cut-off point to be found in the terrain/movement rules when dealing with height differences which might be re-used.
When Is a throw no longer a straight line between thrower and target/When is that include bit of an arc not enough?
"If more than a 2" deviation from straight line is required to lob at obscured ground- add that deviation to the measured range."
The S calculated throw range probably isnt baseball pitcher type throws ... ive just always presumed it includes a bit of an arc for getting to a target.
I respectfully disagree with this, simply because we're playing Gorkamorka and not Bolt Action or some other game that requires a level of reality.
Remember, this is the game where you can cheat your throw range by targeting the ground, then miss, then have the stikkbomb deviate further than your limit.
Plus, these are ork,s and if enough believe a thing can happen, then it can happen. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I respectfully disagree with this, simply because we're playing Gorkamorka and not Bolt Action or some other game that requires a level of reality.
Remember, this is the game where you can cheat your throw range by targeting the ground, then miss, then have the stikkbomb deviate further than your limit.
Plus, these are ork,s and if enough believe a thing can happen, then it can happen. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Im not all up on bolt action but doesnt it in general have more abstraction per thrown dice than 2nd/3rd ed 40k?
Im possibly reading too much into the throw range calculation (S*2+2) in feeling that is the relatively reliable and controllable max range limit for a thrower, scattering further would be the thrower having wound up beyond their level of skill/control and chucking for all they are worth.
It sure is simpler/"cleaner" (in the sense of less rules) to let it be without a height limitation
But there is, at points, some reflection of real world cause/effect/logic to the ruleset.
Abd lobbing stuff over huge rocks or something seems like it should eat up possible distance to me at least.
Related to the topic though:
If a throw misses due to being out of range, where is the scatter origin?
The target, the thrower or some other place, like maybe the max range point between the two?
If its the target, then a Mob with lots of frag stikkbombs can essentially carpet bomb an area across the table.
If its the thrower, then their throw range is not taken into account or used at all and complete randomness is handled by the Unreliable Explosives table.
Im not all up on bolt action but doesnt it in general have more abstraction per thrown dice than 2nd/3rd ed 40k?
Im possibly reading too much into the throw range calculation (S*2+2) in feeling that is the relatively reliable and controllable max range limit for a thrower, scattering further would be the thrower having wound up beyond their level of skill/control and chucking for all they are worth.
It sure is simpler/"cleaner" (in the sense of less rules) to let it be without a height limitation
But there is, at points, some reflection of real world cause/effect/logic to the ruleset.
Abd lobbing stuff over huge rocks or something seems like it should eat up possible distance to me at least.
Related to the topic though:
If a throw misses due to being out of range, where is the scatter origin?
The target, the thrower or some other place, like maybe the max range point between the two?
If its the target, then a Mob with lots of frag stikkbombs can essentially carpet bomb an area across the table.
If its the thrower, then their throw range is not taken into account or used at all and complete randomness is handled by the Unreliable Explosives table.
I would assume a the limit of the range. The maximum range being the maximum distance the Warrior could deliberately throw to. Anything thrown might bounce and go further, but that distance wouldn't be a controlled throw (I really didn't like Will Smith as Deadshot...).
I would agree with this, with some nuance.
You have to be able to see your target, but you can still shift the grenade a bit to try to encompass an additional target.
OR, go strictly by the book: You HAVE to see your target. If you want to be able to target the ground, you must have LOS to that spot on the ground. That's likely the cleanest solution.
The book does say 100 times that you have to see your target. So I would just stick with that rule.
That doesn't sound right, if the target is out of range. On that basis, you could target the middle of an enemy mob 24" away and hope that you'd still catch someone in the scatter.
I'd suggest measuring maximum range (8") towards your target, then scattering from there. (As @Flamekebab also suggested.)
That is indeed what the book says, but perhaps you missed the earlier context. If we follow that to the letter, then you can't lob your stikkbomb over a low wall, because you can't see that point of ground. That seems unsatisfactory, given that this seems a perfectly sensible use.
Im leaving the mechanic i have computerized in for the moment, it is "Set ground aim point anywhere regardless of LOS.".
Will look at updating when/if we get another call decided on for GCE.
So on to something else:
Follow Up
This is a bonus 2” Movement that a Warrior that defeats all their opponents in Close Combat may make. This applies even if it is not the Warrior’s turn - the move is made immediately following Hand-to-Hand combat. It can be used for whatever purpose the Warrior likes - getting behind cover, boarding a nearby Vehicle, or even engaging another Warrior on Combat. Terrain penalties apply as normal.
If used for a Charge move then it does have the caveat that no bonuses are applied for Charging and the combat won’t be resolved until the next relevant turn (i.e. a turn for any of the combatants involved).
Presumably the latter question only arises if you have more than two players. The rules generally assume two. But I think I'd say no to the first question anyway.
It says a Warrior, singular. Also, while 'defeats all their opponents' is a bit vague, they have to be the one to the defeat their opponents. (It doesn't say that any Warrior whose opponents are defeated gets a follow-up.)
Presumably the latter question only arises if you have more than two players. The rules generally assume two. But I think I'd say no to the first question anyway.
It says a Warrior, singular. Also, while 'defeats all their opponents' is a bit vague, they have to be the one to the defeat their opponents. (It doesn't say that any Warrior whose opponents are defeated gets a follow-up.)
I was reading "the move is made immediately following Hand-to-Hand combat" as "when hand-to-hand combats are done but before leaving the hand-to-hand phase".
If follow ups can happen between each separate hand-to-hand combat, when one defeated all, then it becomes clearer.
The spoiler below is handled already if follow ups happen per fight, rather than per phase, then the first winner would just follow up as he please to either lock with the other or move out of range to keep from being locked.
(already wrote this so im leaving it just in case)
Say there are four warriors.
Two of each gang.
Fighting each other in two 1v1 fights.
and they are all within 2" of each other.
And one warrior from each side defeats their opponent.
Then the warrior whos turn it is may want:
To lock the other in hand to hand to prevent being shot at or take away the charge bonus of that other enemy warrior.
And the warrior whos turn it is not may want:
to move away from the other in order to either be able to shoot at the enemy warrior (and let his buddies shoot too).
Or he might want to move away in order to charge in his turn.
It says a Warrior, singular. Also, while 'defeats all their opponents' is a bit vague, they have to be the one to the defeat their opponents..
Thats clear if its a 1v1.
And in a 1vMultiple where the defender takes out all attackers.
And where one of Multiple attackers puts a lone defender out of action.
How does this interact with a multiple engagement fight?
Say 2 defenders fighting 3 attackers, with the 3rd attacker positioned where he was allowed to be allocated to fight either of the defenders.
Fight-mechanically this is sorted as 1v1 and a 1v2.
It seems pretty clear that one of the attackers which did not have an option to pick which defender to fight, due to being out of reach.
Would get a follow up if downing or OOAing his opponent since he would now be out of hand to hand having defeated all their opponents.
But would the defender in the 1v1, if defeating his singe allocated attacker, be granted a follow up?
Or is he still counted as in hand to hand when the 3rd attacker, which is in range and could have been allocated to him, is still up and in fighting condition?
And the other way round:
Say that 3rd attacker which was allocated to one of the defenders, but could have been allocated to either, takes it out, does he get a follow up or is he still engaged with the remaining defender due to previously having been allowed to be allocated to it?
That is indeed what the book says, but perhaps you missed the earlier context. If we follow that to the letter, then you can't lob your stikkbomb over a low wall, because you can't see that point of ground. That seems unsatisfactory, given that this seems a perfectly sensible use.
I caught the earlier context, but because this programming language and there's no room for grey answers, I was posing the argument/option that the rules already account for this, depending on how literal you want to get.
The rules that currently exist are:
- Targeting the ground is a small target
- You must see your target to shoot at it
In gameplay, using this, that simply means that when your target is on the other side of a low wall, you have to target the Unit, and you can't target the ground. You still might catch your secondary target with the template, but it might be a 4+ now instead of being wholly covered.
HOWEVER, I am not all that opposed to letting players target the ground on the other side of a wall, just apply cover penalties as normal.
Which then leads to the question of what are your cover penalties?
Especially if you hit two targets with different cover penalties.
In gameplay, using this, that simply means that when your target is on the other side of a low wall, you have to target the Unit, and you can't target the ground.
Can you target the wall, rather than the ground on the other side of it? I assume still a -1 for targeting a specific point, but I guess this might avoid needing to target ground that you can't see (at least, assuming the opponent is close behind the wall).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
