Round up or Down with S9 ordnance

[Deleted]

In a game this weekend I fired my basilisks and they drifted a bit. This made the center hole hit dirt, but the blast hit the side/ rear of other vehicles. My friends and I couldn't find if we were supposed to round up or down when halving the strength of the shot.

Does anyone know and have a specific reference?

I rolled off and we rounded down for the entire game.

Thanks!

[telecustom]

I have never Halved the strength? When did we have to start doing that?

[Deleted]

The rules say that if a blast center does not land on a vehicle but part of the blast hits the vehicle, the strength of the blast is halved when calculating armor penetration. This is easy for even number strength blasts, but S9 is odd. That is why we had the question, would it be S4 or S5 against a vehicle? S4 made it no good against a Space Marine tank side armour, but S5 would have let me have a chance at glancing.

[telecustom]

Then I say round up.

[fatuous]

Unfortunately it is round down. In addition, u always take the armour of the direction that you fired from, so if you fire at the front of the target, but scatter to the back, you still roll against the front armour.

[angelusmortis]

fatuous said:

Unfortunately it is round down. In addition, u always take the armour of the direction that you fired from, so if you fire at the front of the target, but scatter to the back, you still roll against the front armour.

Close. If the hole in the marker touches the vehicle, regardless of where it touches, you do full strength from the direction your fired from. If the hole in the center is not over the vehicle, its half strength rounded down from the side the hole is on. Page 65 of the BBB.

[ssgtdude (M.I.A)]

Your best hope is that the scatter to the rear, round down and roll a 6.

Any other place on most tanks and I wouldn't even bother rolling.

Unless of course you are playing against another guard unit and can hit a side armor 10 then.

[Woz]

ssgtdude said:

Your best hope is that the scatter to the rear, round down and roll a 6.

Any other place on most tanks and I wouldn't even bother rolling.

Unless of course you are playing against another guard unit and can hit a side armor 10 then.

It doesn't matter where it lands, you always go against the armour from the direction you fired. So if you fired from the front and it scatters to the back then you have to roll against the front armour.

[Deleted]

woz said:

ssgtdude said:

Your best hope is that the scatter to the rear, round down and roll a 6.

Any other place on most tanks and I wouldn't even bother rolling.

Unless of course you are playing against another guard unit and can hit a side armor 10 then.

It doesn't matter where it lands, you always go against the armour from the direction you fired. So if you fired from the front and it scatters to the back then you have to roll against the front armour.

Not completely true. If the weapon is NON-Barrage, then you are correct. Example: the Bassie in direct fire mode.

If the weapon is barrage, then it works from the vehicle from the direction of the hole. Bassie in indirect fire mode.

oh yes, and round down.

BGB pg 65 all in the bullets under Vehicle Armour Values

[Colonel Scipio]

Mathematicaly speaking, in the absence of weather or not the rounding is supposed to be up or down, it is simply supposed to be rounded to the closest number. Since x.5 is just as close to x-1 as x+1, theoreticaly it shouldn't be rounded at all but status quo for statistics dictates that to preserve statistical unbias and avoid a positive skew, which can be as high as 2 or 3 percent in smaller data sets, one should round any halves up to the next integer.

And besides, considering each shots relative strength fluffwise, is the blast from a basilisk shell going to be more like being shot with a heavy stubber or a heavy bolter? Our house rules roll up for that reason.

[ssgtdude (M.I.A)]

Colonel I hear what you are saying from the stand point of mathematics. However, we are talking about GW. You know the people who created a game, but forgot physics,genetics, and something called an editor. Mistakes abound within the game and yet we still play. For one reason or another. GW strives to simplify things and in this case we are not looking at a statistical data base when we work the numbers.

Fluffwise we wouldn't be rounding down at all nor would we halve the strength of a weapon. After all we are looking at a weapon that by todays standards should be able to fire a shell more than a mile away, yet we are only limited to a little more than a mile scale when like guns today can fire in the area of 310 miles (500km) source: www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms_systems/Land/Artillery/Self_Propelled/Self_Prop_Art_Mortars.htm

With this in mind and the fact that there are some things you have to consider regarding the casualties that would be taken in relationship to cover and position (i.e. standing, standing in trenches, prone, prone in a trench). Of course these positional casualties are thrown out the window when you add the Air Burst shells (Which we have today, but for some reason in the 40K universe they lost that technology, but the tau have it.).

Source: "Surprise may be essential or irrelevant. It depends on what effects are required and whether or not the target is likely to move or quickly improve its protective posture. During World War 2 UK researchers[8] concluded that for impact fuzed munitions the relative risk were as follows:

* men standing - 1
* men lying - 1/3
* men firing from trenches - 1/15–1/50
* men crouching in trenches - 1/25–1/100

Obviously airburst munitions significantly increase the relative risk for lying men, etc. Historically most casualties occur in the first 10–15 seconds of fire, i.e. the time needed to react and improve protective posture, however, this is less relevant if airburst is used. "

quoted from the Army Operational Research Group Report No 9, lethal and material Effects of Gunfire and Bombing on Land Target 20 March 1944

Of course we would like to think that GW did do some sort of research and incorporated something of the real world in this hence the cover save and in order to simplify things doesn't include troop relative position (e.g. a prone trooper would get a 6+ cover in a field versus one standing not receiving one). I know as a guard player I would not have a static gun line of teh civil war if I knew that by modeling the position of a trooper in a prone position would give me a better cover save even when normal cover was not available, not to mention that a prone position is a more stable firing position and could potentially increase a BS rating... But I digress and am starting to get into more of a rant of what would of, could of, should of been included for guard rules, but are not considered relative to the way the game plays. So in the mean time we play by the rules and go about our games in the search of that perfect win against a worthy opponent (e.g. no casualties against a vet player, not the new kid that is just starting his army)

Reference for the OP is page 65 under Vehicle armour values. First bullet statement. And don't forget to roll both dice for armor pen. the half value doesn't change the fact that it is still an ordnance weapon and it is hitting a vehicle.

[Deleted]

Staff Sergeant - well said! Mathematics aside, W40k aren't interested in "real world" stats in reaction, response, troop behaviour or damage. If you are interested check out the ancient rules for Confrontation, or later Necromunda or Inquisitor.

Unfortunately the amount of variances, including proper cover saves, damage tables, various weapon charts etc are more role playing orientated and translate badly up to the large scale. Anyone who remembers the original rules in Rogue Trader could estify to the fact that a 1000 pt battle would last two days!

And we're missing an important point: selling models! GW makes rules simple, stuff dies quicker, geeks and dorks buy more stuff, Chaaaaching! The new plastic models are awesome, but the lead models are getting more pricey and are strangely always the most desirable model. Therefore GW take a strategic move away from Inquisitor, Necromunda and Confrontation type highly detailed games and full speed ahead Cities of DEath (go on buy a building!) and Apocalypse, mass slaughter, mass murder, massive armies, field nothing but titans and Super Heavy tanks - effectively EPIC for 30-40yo's who can now afford a titan - LOL!

We got bigger and so are the games... and yet we still LOVE IT! I have to say that I love what GW have done, I think they ae very canny and clever and have succeeded in a world full of computer games and instant gratification with a hobby that's a psychological combination of pulp fiction D&D and stamp collecting. Well done those boys from Notts.

Read this unencyclopedia link, I nearly pee'd myself laughing: uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40k