Stray bullets

**AZTiger98** · 09-09-2015 23:44

Thought of this one the other day, will have to actually play it a couple times and see how well (or if) it works...

When shooting at an enemy aircraft...

If any of the damage cards drawn for YOUR shots against the enemy aircraft are '0' (with no special damages), and if there is another plane within the 1-ruler distance from your plane in the line of fire and beyond your initial target -- does not matter if said plane is friend or foe -- then THAT pilot has damage cards drawn against him for every '0' damage card drawn by the initial target. If not playing with altitude and 'collision' rules, then the plane just has to be in the line of fire and 1 ruler or less away from you (they could even be overlapping your target). If using altitude rules, they must be at the same altitude as your target in addition to being within 1 ruler distance of your plane.

Rationale - bullets don't just "miss and disappear." If you get in their way and they missed their intended target, they can still hit you. I don't know how many times a plane in WW1 or WW2 was hit by stray fire that missed it's initial target, but I bet it's probably more than we would initially think...

So - to illustrate an example...

Player A is firing at Player B. Player A's Wingman is in pursuit of another plane beyond player B, but is in the extended line of fire, within 1 ruler distance of Player A, and at the same altitude. Player B is short range from player A, so player B draws 2 damage cards. 1 card is a '2', 1 card is a '0'. Player B takes 2 damage. Player A's wingman, because he is in the extended line of fire and within range, now draws one damage card due to the 1 '0' damage card that was initially drawn against Player B. This card is a '3', so now Player A's wingman has taken 3 points of damage....

**FarEast** · 09-09-2015 23:54

I really like that idea.

**Flying Officer Kyte** · 09-10-2015 03:19

Good one David.

Complies very well with the KISS system.
Rob.

**tikkifriend** · 09-10-2015 03:48

That could be lethal

But as you say Dave, potentially a true reflection of what could have happened.

**grumpybear** · 09-10-2015 05:28

Not a bad idea. Will give it a try

**Teaticket** · 09-10-2015 05:36

Good idea. I like it and will try it maybe with slightly watered down damage.

**Tonx** · 09-10-2015 05:49

This is an excellent idea and like has been mentioned reflects on what could have been the consequence historically.

Even more excellent about this idea is it's applicable to both versions of the game: I'm going to see if I can award it with a rep point - hope so

**flash** · 09-10-2015 06:52

Smacks a bit of 'two bites of the cherry' to me but I think it's application to shooting at overlapping planes is not unreasonable.
This is partly influenced by my not seeing zeroes as misses but rather as hits that didn't cause any notable damage - a through and through hitting something close aboard seems more acceptable than something that could be 3/4 of a ruler further away, even if it is just in a straight line.
Thought provoking though, I'll say that !

**Horse4261** · 09-10-2015 13:44

Very interesting idea indeed. I have always been a proponent of the 'Missed rounds don't just disappear' school of thought.

Perhaps to cut down on the 'double bite' as Flash put it, only drawing if the intended target is withing half rulers length of the attacker. This could simulate the lead required of the attacker vs target aircraft. Anything beyond the half mark is just relatively too fast or slow (depending on aircraft) to be effectively impacted by the stray rounds.

This alone would make me careful of following too closely to a friendly's target.

**fast.git** · 09-10-2015 14:34

Originally Posted by flash

...This is partly influenced by my not seeing zeroes as misses but rather as hits that didn't cause any notable damage...

I'm more of this mind.

I am interested to hear how the trial goes, but I have some concerns:

If I can damage a friendly (or hostile, I suppose) at two rulers' distance if I'm shooting through someone, why shouldn't I be able to hit targets at two rulers' distance all the time?
Would this rule apply if it were two hostile aircraft in line with one another? If so, this would permit the targeting of two aircraft in the same turn.

I see the added damage potential and added range being two separate things, both of which have the potential to increase the damage curve dramatically.

**AZTiger98** · 09-10-2015 17:48

Thanks for the feedback, guys. Just to clarify - I'm not talking about a ruler's length PAST the target - or as someone put it, 2 rulers' length from the shooter. I'm talking about 1 ruler's length FROM THE SHOOTER. Rare that this would happen unless you have two planes flying "side by side" when one is shot at from the "open" side, or you have one plane following too closely and another coming in head-on...and unless you're playing with rules allowing planes to overlap (e.g., the "basic rules"), I believe the original target would have to be at close-range to the shooter. You're not really "targeting" the second plane -- simply (the way I envisioned it, anyway) assuming that the bullets missed your intended target and are still moving and able to cause damage to anything they hit. Could it mean you unintentionally damage a plane you weren't shooting at in the first place? Sure.

**fast.git** · 09-10-2015 18:28

Now that makes more sense. Still not sure if I'm on board with the alterations to the damage curve... but I apologize for being obtuse and misunderstanding the bit about the range.

**Bruce** · 09-10-2015 19:56

In altitude games, I definitely like it for shooting at one of two-or-more overlapping, same-Altitude Level and chits or no-chits AC ... any 0-damage-with-no-special-damage cards drawn by the intended tgt must be re-drawn by any overlapping AC at the same Altitude Level and chits or no-chits. The shooter always has the right to decide not to shoot (e.g. if the overlapping, same-Alt-and-chits-or-no-chits AC was friendly he might decide not to shoot).
Beyond this use, it seems to me to be a small-value added-complication to altitude games. We are finding our Altitude games (they already use optional and House Rules, in particular the commonly discussed House-Rule diving-manoeuvre sequences and ACE abilities) complex enough when combined with the nuances/complexities of the official rules.
AND, for PBeM altitude games involving large numbers of players/AC in which manoeuvres and shooting opportunities are typically more heavily overlapped than for face-to-face games (a common challenge/frustration for PBeM game runners) there is no opportunity for the game runner to consult with players about whether they wish to shoot or hold their fire. So, I can't see even this (over-lapping tgts) working.
BUT, it's a neat idea that I'm going to ponder for a while. I'll let ya know if I do anything with it.
Thanks David.