Tag & homing artillery

[nckestrel]

There is no attack roll for TAG in standard.

Tai Dai is saying that’s analogous to it auto hitting with the TAG.
You could just as well say the artillery auto hits and you’re just rolling for the TAG.

Both are analogies. The reality is, in standard rules, TAG + artillery doesn’t work like it does in advanced and making analogies to that way are not really how it works.

In standard, TAG makes spotting for artillery more effective.

[Descronan]

Is the TAG ability losing its "special attack"? I don't see any mention of that in the errata.

This is creating a rules paradox where the TAG ability says one thing while Standard Artillery rules say another. And will this affect Semi-Guided LRMs? Whatever the ruling, ideally, it should be consistent for both.

I realize that Advanced artillery is different, but I don't see anything in the errata referencing deleting the Advanced Artillery rules. And since you've said that homing rounds are Advanced Artillery only, then how does that affect the situation presented?

[Scotty]

There is no conflict.  There are the following scenarios:

1) You are using the rules for Standard Artillery.  In this case, if your spotter for an artillery attack has TAG, reduce the target number by 1 if the target is within range to use the TAG.  There is no attack roll required.  If you have a unit that is not spotting for an attack, it can use TAG as normal.  The spotting unit may use their TAG to make a special attack to designate another target that turn, but doing so will make the artillery attack worse to the same level as not having TAG in the first place.  Since that's both a) strictly worse than just using another unit to spot and using the TAG spotter to shoot something else and b) doesn't actually change any net numbers to the attack, there's no point in prohibiting it by the rules.

2) You are using the rules for Advanced Artillery (the original rules published in the book prior to errata).  In this case, in which case TAG does nothing on its own, but may be used with Homing Arrow IV.

That's it.  It's less complicated than people are trying to make it.

[nckestrel]

There is no entry or rules for TAG in standard except the standard rules artillery saying the TAG special can give the -1 when spotting for artillery. There is no specialized TAG attack in standard rules to errata away. There are no hiking rooked in standard. There’re is no semi-guided LRMs in standard.
If you want to use advanced rules artillery or advanced rules alternate munitions for semi-guided LRMs, then you also use the advanced rules TAG attack. 

[Scotty]

Well, strictly speaking you can be using Semi-Guided LRMs and standard rules Artillery, in which case you get my scenario 1. ;)

[Xochi]

Speaking of spotters. I don't understand this section of artillery advanced rules for spotting for an artillery attack.

AS. Pg 74:
"Artillery spotting automatically occurs as long as the friendly spotting unit has a valid line of sight to the artillery attack’s chosen POI, and requires no roll."

When does spotting ever require a roll? It always automatic when anyone declares they are spotting for an IF attack. Does this mean that you don't need to designate a spotter? Just have some one with LoS nearby? Do they still pay the IF penalty to shoot even if they are passively spotting? Does the artillery piece pay a +1 cause the auto spotter fired?

[Scotty]

You're thinking way too hard about it.  Using the phrase "Artillery spotting" does not mean it's substantially different from normal IF spotting.  All exceptions are included in the relevant text, don't try to apply it to different sections of the book.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Saying "requires no roll" is just a clarification on the earlier statement that spotting "automatically occurs".  There's no need to wrestle with why the grammatically unnecessary clause was added on to the end of the sentence ... the 'why's is simple clarity through redundancy.

[Descronan]

There is no conflict.  There are the following scenarios:

1) You are using the rules for Standard Artillery.  In this case, if your spotter for an artillery attack has TAG, reduce the target number by 1 if the target is within range to use the TAG.  There is no attack roll required.  If you have a unit that is not spotting for an attack, it can use TAG as normal.  The spotting unit may use their TAG to make a special attack to designate another target that turn, but doing so will make the artillery attack worse to the same level as not having TAG in the first place.  Since that's both a) strictly worse than just using another unit to spot and using the TAG spotter to shoot something else and b) doesn't actually change any net numbers to the attack, there's no point in prohibiting it by the rules.

2) You are using the rules for Advanced Artillery (the original rules published in the book prior to errata).  In this case, in which case TAG does nothing on its own, but may be used with Homing Arrow IV.

That's it.  It's less complicated than people are trying to make it.

With respect, unless the Standard Artillery rules are the same for Advanced Artillery, this is going to cause confusion. Inconsistent rules are always a problem. Without knowledge of how Advanced Artillery is going to differ from Standard, I can't really comment beyond that. If alternate ammo is the only change and introducing homing rounds, then yes, this should be fairly simple.

[Xochi]

Also on the table for advanced, you get a -1 for spotting, and -2 for having PRB etc. so it sit a total of -3 or is it an either or situation? Only RCN says don't use this if PRB is used.

[nckestrel]

-3.
-1 is for just a spotter.
-2 if spotter has RCN (-1 for spotter, -1 for spotter has RCN)
-3 if spotter has LPRB, PRB or BH (-1 for spotter, -2 for spotter having PRB)

[Scotty]

With respect, unless the Standard Artillery rules are the same for Advanced Artillery, this is going to cause confusion. Inconsistent rules are always a problem. Without knowledge of how Advanced Artillery is going to differ from Standard, I can't really comment beyond that. If alternate ammo is the only change and introducing homing rounds, then yes, this should be fairly simple.

The rules are different; they are not inconsistent.  If you're confused by the differences in rules you haven't read, you should first read them before suggesting that the confusion is the rules' fault.

[nckestrel]

If rules must be consistent, then it’s advanced artillery that should go. The entire point of standard rules artillery is to be more consistent with other standard rules attacks.
It does indirect fire just like LRM indirect fire. It does direct fire just like standard weapon attacks. It adds what was deemed essential to artillery, area of effect (and with it the ability to target a hex).
Advanced artillery is a whole different animal. It throws out the entire to-hit table for its own modifiers. It adds flight times and off board. And to some players those are essential (and this why standard didn’t just remove the advanced option all together).
You get to choose what you want to be consistent with. You want consistent with other standards rules, use standard rules artillery. You want consistency with how artillery has worked with total warfare, use advanced rules.
The confusion is people trying to mix advanced rules artillery and standard. Ingrained bias is one reason (assumptions based on how things were), the poor presentation is another (errata often assumed to replace, hard to tell from errata document it’s separste from existing advanced artillery).

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Once Commander's Edition come out it'll be much easier to keep everything straight.  There was an early flood of errata (esp since 1st printing) but in the last year or two things have been well hammered out.  Commander's Edition won't involve the same degree of cross referencing your rulebook with errata.

[Descronan]

Once Commander's Edition come out it'll be much easier to keep everything straight.  There was an early flood of errata (esp since 1st printing) but in the last year or two things have been well hammered out.  Commander's Edition won't involve the same degree of cross referencing your rulebook with errata.

That's my hope. Thanks for your efforts.

[Descronan]

The rules are different; they are not inconsistent.  If you're confused by the differences in rules you haven't read, you should first read them before suggesting that the confusion is the rules' fault.

I was referencing "new" advanced artillery rules in the upcoming Commander's Edition. So yeah, can't read a book that hasn't been released yet. No need to be snotty, Scotty. 

As it is, the advanced artillery in the Core Rules is inconsistent from the "standard" artillery in the errata. Unless the advanced rules are reformed to be consistent with the new standard artillery, this will cause confusion.

So the question is - Are the current advanced artillery rules are being removed or revised to be consistent with standard? If not, then this will cause confusion.

[Scotty]

I was referencing "new" advanced artillery rules in the upcoming Commander's Edition. So yeah, can't read a book that hasn't been released yet. No need to be snotty, Scotty. 

As it is, the advanced artillery in the Core Rules is inconsistent from the "standard" artillery in the errata. Unless the advanced rules are reformed to be consistent with the new standard artillery, this will cause confusion.

So the question is - Are the current advanced artillery rules are being removed or revised to be consistent with standard? If not, then this will cause confusion.

I reread the thread to see if I missed something, but found no mention of "new" rules until this post.  I think you may have gotten confused somewhere.

If you want to use artillery with standard rules, use the Standard Artillery found in the errata document.

If you want artillery to be more like it is in Total Warfare, use the artillery rules printed in the book,  which are the advanced artillery rules.

There is no overlap.  They two different ways to use the same thing based on player preference.

They are not inconsistent, they are merely different.

[Descronan]

I reread the thread to see if I missed something, but found no mention of "new" rules until this post.  I think you may have gotten confused somewhere.

If you want to use artillery with standard rules, use the Standard Artillery found in the errata document.

If you want artillery to be more like it is in Total Warfare, use the artillery rules printed in the book,  which are the advanced artillery rules.

There is no overlap.  They two different ways to use the same thing based on player preference.

They are not inconsistent, they are merely different.

Dude... I originated this thread. I'm sorry you didn't read my intent despite numerous references to the errata and new rules and even referencing that they "fix it" before sending the Commander's Edition to print. Perhaps the fault is on the reader?

If you think having two very different tables for calculating the To-Hit is "consistent" I disagree. Having two "different" rules with very different outcomes is "inconsistent" and will cause problems. I'm recommending we have one core table that is IDENTICAL between both standard and advanced. Advanced artillery should be reserved for alternate ammo, off-board, and other "advanced" and optional rules. When two players get together for a game, there should be no question about how they calculated the To-Hit number.

That's my opinion. Take it or leave it.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

It's not an issue of anyone saying you're wrong and the two systems are consistent.

It's more of an issue of disagreeing that consistency is necessary.  The rules for artillery can be looked at in a binary way: either you're using the standard rules for artillery and you're ignoring everything on artillery in the advanced rules, or you're using the advanced rules for artillery and you're ignoring everything in the standard rules for artillery.

[Descronan]

It's not an issue of anyone saying you're wrong and the two systems are consistent.

It's more of an issue of disagreeing that consistency is necessary.  The rules for artillery can be looked at in a binary way: either you're using the standard rules for artillery and you're ignoring everything on artillery in the advanced rules, or you're using the advanced rules for artillery and you're ignoring everything in the standard rules for artillery.

So, you're saying they're not consistent - which was my question and concern. As I said, this will cause problems. I've hosted enough tournaments where players learned different versions of the errata and that completely screwed up their expectations/strategies. Having two different base rules/tables between standard and advanced will continue this trend. And that's a problem. I've seen too many players get frustrated and threaten to stop playing games because of rules conflicts. This invites more conflict IMO.

Thanks guys! I'm looking forward to getting the Commander's Edition to clean up this errata mess. My hope is that my concerns are alleviated once I have the book in hand.

 :thumbsup:

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I'll absolutely agree that if you're going to host a competitive game/tournament you should absolutely be specifying which optional rules you are using, to include which version of the artillery rules will be in play. 

Aside from clarifying which artillery rules the event will be using: it's my opinion that saying "all optional rules are legal" for a competitive game is a terrible, terrible idea.