July 19, 2019, 11:57:08 PM

Author Topic: Nicassar Dhow U-turns vs. Batteries  (Read 1191 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bozeman

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • Loc: Lansing, MI
    • Four Strands Hobby
Nicassar Dhow U-turns vs. Batteries
« on: March 03, 2017, 12:36:47 AM »
A Nicassar Dhow has a speed of 20cm and a turn rate of 180 degrees.  During the Tau player's turn, a squadron of Dhows moves 10cm, turns 180 degrees, and then moves 10cm, ending up right where they started (albeit turned around).  During the opponent's turn, the Dhows are targeted by a weapon that uses the Gunnery Table.  Which of the following is true?

A. Because the Dhows moved 10cm in one direction, and then 10cm in the opposite direction, their total displacement is zero, which means they moved a total of less than 5cm.  As such, they count as Defences on the Gunnery Table.

B. The Dhows moved their maximum distance.  Although the two halves of their movement were in opposite directions, their total movement was 20cm.  As such, they use the column on the Gunnery Table appropriate to an Escort of their facing.

I'd say RAW that option A is correct, but this is clearly against the spirit of the 5cm movement rule.  That rule was meant to penalize units moving so slowly that they would be easy to hit.  These Dhows would be moving back and forth rapidly, and as such should be as hard to hit as a normal ship.  Also, this scenario could be repeated by any other Escort with a 90 degree turn on Come To A New Heading, as they could move 1/2 their distance, turn, turn again, and move back to where they started.  Logically, option B would be more fair to the Tau player.


Offline Xca|iber

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 206
  • *Transcribing Intensifies*
Re: Nicassar Dhow U-turns vs. Batteries
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2017, 06:38:13 AM »
My reading would be that scenario B is actually following RAW. That is, BFG is not WH40k - in BFG we are actually concerned with the specific path taken by a ship, not total displacement, when determining movement distances. This is because the movement rules are quite heavily restricted, meaning that total displacement is not necessary to figure out if a move was legal.

For example, if an escort has a 20cm minimum move distance, and moves 5cm forward, then makes a 90 degree turn and moves 15cm, the game interprets that as a legal minimum move, even though its total displacement is only ~15.8cm from its original position. This just looks weird when your escort has a 180 degree turn rate.

So I'm 100% on the side of option B as both RAW and RAI.
++Ask Not, Fear Not++
BFG:XR - The Battlefleet Gothic Expanded Revised Rules Project

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Nicassar Dhow U-turns vs. Batteries
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2017, 08:55:01 AM »
Version B should be applied.

Version A can be seen as IgoYouGo strictly applied to all and everything. Eg, the enemy ship really doesn't do anyhting when the ship is moving.

Offline Blindhorizon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 304
Re: Nicassar Dhow U-turns vs. Batteries
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2017, 03:11:15 AM »
The ship is moving dipping weaving then A tight turn and doing the same on the way back. Which causes the guns on its opponenet to still trying to lock target and let loose a volley on a moving target.