Attacker Target Modifier

[Xochi]

I was wondering for some clarification since artillery seems to be the fad of the day.

"a direct-fire on-board artillery attack must also apply the standard weapon attack modifiers for intervening terrain, attacker movement modifiers and—if the target is a unit—the target’s type and movement modifiers."

There are a few places where this comes up (such as a special Artillery Flak Attack with cluster ammunition). Normally your own movement never effects the number to hit, is this a special case where if your TMM is +2 from moving, you add an additional +2 to hit?

Such as you move your Catapult. It direct fires so (Base Pilot Skill + 4 (Art. Attack) + 0 (Cannot get immobile benefits from targeting ground) +1 (AoE) +2 (your own TMM)) the actual to hit number is 11? When you can fire Indirectly for a +10 since all artillery is indirect unless you specifically say direct? What is even the point to direct fire?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Jumping.

[Weirdo]

Also standstill. Zero movement is still movement.

[Xochi]

That's what I thought, but a certain somebody ( :P) was arguing that's not how its written so moving effects your aim too.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Someone's saying the penalty for Jumping and the bonus for standstill aren't attacker's movement modifiers? O.0

[Xochi]

Specifically stand still. Aside from trying to argue that your TMM is also effecting your ability to shoot.

[DarkJaguar]

Someone's saying the penalty for Jumping and the bonus for standstill aren't attacker's movement modifiers? O.0

They aren't in any tables, and are not ever explicitly called that.  By the rule of "If the book doesn't say that, you can't do it", it's not an attacker movement modifier.  For what it's worth, IDGAF, but the only thing ever labelled as a movement modifier is "Target Movement Modifier".

[Tai Dai Cultist]

They aren't in any tables, and are not ever explicitly called that.  By the rule of "If the book doesn't say that, you can't do it", it's not an attacker movement modifier.  For what it's worth, IDGAF, but the only thing ever labelled as a movement modifier is "Target Movement Modifier".

I suppose I see your point and I'm not unsympathetic to it ... I'm big on RAW myself.  But to be fair it *IS* in a table (errata doc v2.4 pg 44).  Furthermore it's perhaps not explicitly said that standstill/immobile triggers the "movement" foo-word, but lines such as "Infantry (conventional and battle armor) do not use the standing still or jumping attacker movement modifiers." imo make it implicitly clear the intent is that standstill counts as a "movement modifier".

[DarkJaguar]

I suppose I see your point and I'm not unsympathetic to it ... I'm big on RAW myself.  But to be fair it *IS* in a table (errata doc v2.4 pg 44).  Furthermore it's perhaps not explicitly said that standstill/immobile triggers the "movement" foo-word, but lines such as "Infantry (conventional and battle armor) do not use the standing still or jumping attacker movement modifiers." imo make it implicitly clear the intent is that standstill counts as a "movement modifier".

Ah, so we just missed a sentence on a table footnote in the errata. 

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Ah, so we just missed a sentence on a table footnote in the errata.

Well that, but moreso the relevance of a modifier being based on attacker's movement (or the lack thereof) on being considered an "attacker's movement" modifier, even if not explicitly typed as such.

As valuable as RAW is, you do have to keep in mind that AS isn't written with the assumption of that kind of analysis of the rules in mind.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing.  40K was always a mess from a technical writing point of view, and that hasn't stopped it from being a juggernaut in the miniatures wargaming industry. 

[Scotty]

It would require a dedicated and rigorous effort by multiple individuals to write a rulebook to a good technical writing standard - typically an amount that makes the actual production of the resultant excessively formal work of text non-viable for either the writer or the producer.

Simply put: it's not worth it to try.  Try to interpret it in that light. :P