+ 1 damage bonuses cumulative?

[Marechallannes]

Firing (in regards to altitude)
There is a +1 damage bonus in the first phase of firing for planes firing in its front arc at a plane 1 level of Altitude lower.

Is there a possibility to combine this with the optional rule: aim + 1 damage bonus (shooting the second time in a row at a plane).

...or is this bonus not cumulative.

[Oberst Hajj]

Good question, let's see what Andrea has to say.

[Watchdog]

If you are talking about Firing from above (RAP page 19), then I think it is explained there quite clearly. The +1 is the Aim itself, not an additional bonus. Thing is, you get the Aim bonus in this case even if this was your first phase of fire, not only after the second phase of fire in row as per the main Aim rule.

[Angiolillo]

No, you can not cumulate them. Actually the (optional) rule says "If an airplane fires at a target that is in his front arc on a lower altitude level, it receives the +1 Aim bonus even if it is the fiorst phase of fire." Same for a diving/overdiving plane. I choosed this wording to make clear that it is not a different bonus that could be cumulated or not - it is the very same bonus exceptionally counted even if you just start firing.
You could also notice that the consolle has just a +1 space for damage cards, not a +2. Even the other +1 possibility, the Perfect aim ace skill, is not cumulative (the skill rule openly says so).

[Marechallannes]

Ah.

We can't separate the aim bonus from this higher altitude (shooting) bonus.


...Even the other +1 possibility, the Perfect aim ace skill, is not cumulative (the skill rule openly says so).

Ok, that was my second thought (ace skill).

So you can gain a maximum of + 1 damage.




By the way, I've got a German version of the Rules & Accessoires Pack. Haven't discovered any differences yet. ;)

[Angiolillo]

Thanks a lot! I am glad that the tramnslator did a good job. In the pat, a fw differencies were spottd between different translations.

[Watchdog]

Thanks a lot! I am glad that the tramnslator did a good job. In the pat, a fw differencies were spottd between different translations.

Aye, such as the famous trench fire debate during the preparations for mission 7 of the Over the Trenches campaign.;)

:thankyou: Andrea for keeping in touch with the community.

[Omegalazarus]

I was going to make a new post with my question, but this seems similar enough.

THe Ace skill "Perfect Aim" gives the aim bonus when used. Am I right that it gives that bonus to both cards if the shot is close range? The rule is a bit vague and mentions a 'card', but the logic seems to be like you are applying the aim bonus, which counts for all the cards drawn from that shot (1 or 2, depending on range). I was just looking to confirm this as I am selecting my first ace ability for the campaign I am in.

So, a close range shot using the "Perfect Aim" ability. Do both cards drawn go in the '+1' slot?

[HTRAINo]

Hmmm? I would say yes to that, but... must double check the rules. Why not select 'chivalrous aptitude', and then select this one too?

*Goes off like a busy 'rule finding' ferret.

[wargamer]

No, they are specified as non cumulative.

In my set of ace skills, there is a similar card to Perfect Aim in the option card Deadly Aim. The purpose of these similar cards is not to be cumulative, but to allow you another chance at the +1 before the recovery markers are removed from the first card.


I was going to make a new post with my question, but this seems similar enough.

THe Ace skill "Perfect Aim" gives the aim bonus when used. Am I right that it gives that bonus to both cards if the shot is close range? The rule is a bit vague and mentions a 'card', but the logic seems to be like you are applying the aim bonus, which counts for all the cards drawn from that shot (1 or 2, depending on range). I was just looking to confirm this as I am selecting my first ace ability for the campaign I am in.

So, a close range shot using the "Perfect Aim" ability. Do both cards drawn go in the '+1' slot?

[Oberst Hajj]

No, they are specified as non cumulative.

In my set of ace skills, there is a similar card to Perfect Aim in the option card Deadly Aim. The purpose of these similar cards is not to be cumulative, but to allow you another chance at the +1 before the recovery markers are removed from the first card.

I think you off on this one. Perfect Aim works exactly like the the consecutive shooting +1. It applies to both cards drawn at close range. The Ace skill would not combine with consecutive shooting for a +2 on either card however.

[Hunter]

I think you off on this one. Perfect Aim works exactly like the the consecutive shooting +1. It applies to both cards drawn at close range. The Ace skill would not combine with consecutive shooting for a +2 on either card however.

This makes sense to me.

[flash]

I think you off on this one. Perfect Aim works exactly like the the consecutive shooting +1. It applies to both cards drawn at close range. The Ace skill would not combine with consecutive shooting for a +2 on either card however.

It makes sense to me too but having seen the wording of the first sentence I'd have to disagree:

Perfect Aim:
"When firing, this ace may choose to have his opponent take one additional damage point when his attack inflicts damage. To remember that the card causes extra damage, keep it on the "+1 damage" space on the target airplane console. A card inflicting zero damage is still considered a zero. You must decide to use this skill before your opponent draws the damage card. When you use this skill, take three recovery counters. Note the bonus granted by this skill is not cumulative with the bonus granted by the, Aim optional rule (page 19), if that rule is in use."

An attack is either one or two cards depending on the range so it reads, to me at least, that at close range it's +1 to only one card of the two drawn - though you specify which card it applies to before it is drawn by deciding to use the skill.
Just my opinion. Another question that Andrea can clear up ?! ;)

[Marechallannes]

An attack is either one or two cards depending on the range so it reads, to me at least, that at close range it's +1 to only one card of the two drawn - though you specify which card it applies to before it is drawn by deciding to use the skill.
Just my opinion. Another question that Andrea can clear up ?! ;)

That was my intention too, Flash.

Only one card get a single + 1 bonus.

[wargamer]

I think you off on this one. Perfect Aim works exactly like the the consecutive shooting +1. It applies to both cards drawn at close range. The Ace skill would not combine with consecutive shooting for a +2 on either card however.

And this differs from non cumulative how?

[Oberst Hajj]

It makes sense to me too but having seen the wording of the first sentence I'd have to disagree:

Perfect Aim:
"When firing, this ace may choose to have his opponent take one additional damage point when his attack inflicts damage.

An attack is either one or two cards depending on the range so it reads, to me at least, that at close range it's +1 to only one card of the two drawn - though you specify which card it applies to before it is drawn by deciding to use the skill.
Just my opinion. Another question that Andrea can clear up ?! ;)

So if you declare Perfect Aim on the first of a two card close range shot, and that first card turns out to be a 0 and the second card is not a 0, you just lose your ace skill? Why on earth (or in the air :D) would you ever use that ace skill on a close range shot... where you would naturally be a better shot in the first place?


And this differs from non cumulative how?

It doesn't, I was just pointing out that you would not get the +1 form this skill and the normal aim bonus of +1 as this was a different question.

[flash]

So if you declare Perfect Aim on the first of a two card close range shot, and that first card turns out to be a 0 and the second card is not a 0, you just lose your ace skill? Why on earth (or in the air :D) would you ever use that ace skill on a close range shot... where you would naturally be a better shot in the first place?

You're quite right (think I needed a question mark at the end of that sentence); though should being a great shot guarantee a great damaging hit every time..??!
Putting that aside, my point is that it reads as +1 on the close range attack not +2 as was being suggested by adding +1 to each damage card drawn.
And I will reiterate "Just my opinion. Another question that Andrea can clear up ?!"

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Having re-read the WGF Rules and Accessories Pack rulebook it appears the RAW can be interpreted as follows:

Pilot firing at a target from the 'second consecutive phase of fire' onward adds +1 AIM damage bonus to ALL (non-zero) damage cards, EXCEPT where they are also attacked and take damage as per the DISRUPTION rule (p.20) which cancels AIM and TAILING advantages for the next phase.

Ace pilot firing at a target using PERFECT AIM can add a +1 damage bonus to a SINGLE (non zero) damage card before it is drawn by their opponent. As it is not specifically mentioned it does not appear this +1 PERFECT AIM bonus is subject to DISRUPTION.

As an example:

Turn 1 Phase 1 - Ace pilot attacks opponent for the first time at long range, using PERFECT AIM to add +1 damage to the single (non zero) damage card nominated before the card is drawn, then draws three recovery counters;
Turn 1 Phase 2 - Ace pilot attacks the same opponent for the second consecutive turn at short range using the AIM bonus to add +1 damage to both (non zero) damage cards, discards one recovery counter;
Turn 1 Phase 3 - Ace pilot attacks the same opponent for the third consecutive turn at short range using the AIM bonus to add +1 damage to both (non zero) damage cards, discards the second recovery counter;
Turn 2 Phase 1 - Ace pilot attacks the same opponent for the fourth consecutive turn, this time at long range using the AIM bonus to add +1 damage to the single (non zero) damage card, discards their third and last recovery counter, but also takes damage from an attack, therefore being subject to DISRUPTION;
Turn 2 Phase 2 - Ace pilot attacks the same opponent for the fourth consecutive turn back at close range but cannot use AIM bonus due to disruption, instead choosing to use the PERFECT AIM bonus to add +1 damage to one of the two damage cards, nominated before the card is drawn, then draws three recovery counters.

So PERFECT AIM whilst not as powerful as the standard AIM bonus at close range (only 1 card instead of 2) does not require the 'consecutive phase' condition and does not appear to be subject to DISRUPTION, which provides a tangible advantage.

PS - For multi-skill aces Perfect Aim is great when used with Sniper - you get to look at the cards first then choose which one your target gets, adding +1 damage for good measure!

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Nicely laid out and explained Carl. I take it if the ace wasn't subject to disruption Turn 2 Phase 2 would be:

Turn 2 Pase 2 - Ace pilot attacks the same opponent for the fourth consecutive turn back at close range and uses the AIM bonus to add +1 to both (non-zero) cards and the PERFECT AIM bonus to add +1 damage to one of the two damage cards (non-zero), nominated before the card is drawn, then draws three recovery counters.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Nicely laid out and explained Carl. I take it if the ace wasn't subject to disruption Turn 2 Phase 2 would be:

Turn 2 Pase 2 - Ace pilot attacks the same opponent for the fourth consecutive turn back at close range and uses the AIM bonus to add +1 to both (non-zero) cards and the PERFECT AIM bonus to add +1 damage to one of the two damage cards (non-zero), nominated before the card is drawn, then draws three recovery counters.

Sorry Neil, that is not possible as the PERFECT AIM bonus does not stack with the standard AIM bonus. This is explicitly stated on page 22 of the WGF RAP under the PERFECT AIM Ace Rule.

It's EITHER / OR not AND. But with Perfect Aim you get the bonus on the first round and at least once per turn when you would be denied an AIM bonus due to Disruption, which is pretty good.

Cheers,

Carl.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Understood, over and out.

Cheers for the clear up Carl. Just wanted to make sure I had it right in my own mind.

[Oberst Hajj]

Having re-read the WGF Rules and Accessories Pack rulebook it appears the RAW can be interpreted as follows:

Pilot firing at a target from the 'second consecutive phase of fire' onward adds +1 AIM damage bonus to ALL (non-zero) damage cards, EXCEPT where they are also attacked and take damage as per the DISRUPTION rule (p.20) which cancels AIM and TAILING advantages for the next phase.

Ace pilot firing at a target using PERFECT AIM can add a +1 damage bonus to a SINGLE (non zero) damage card before it is drawn by their opponent. As it is not specifically mentioned it does not appear this +1 PERFECT AIM bonus is subject to DISRUPTION.


The rule never says a single damage card... that is the way you read it and your emphases on the word "single", which never appears in the text at all.

Having re-read it my self a couple of times, I will concede that the Perfect Aim +1 does not apply to both damage cards at close range, but I stand by that you do not have to pick if it applies to the first or second card before it is drawn. The rule says " When firing, this ace may choose to have his opponent take one additional dame point when his attack inflicts damage." Emphases on attack applied by me. At close range, your attack is two damage cards. You have to decide to use the ace skill before the cards are drawn (to keep you honest in using it if they are both zeros), but not apply it to a certain card.


You're quite right (think I needed a question mark at the end of that sentence); though should being a great shot guarantee a great damaging hit every time..??!
Putting that aside, my point is that it reads as +1 on the close range attack not +2 as was being suggested by adding +1 to each damage card drawn.
And I will reiterate "Just my opinion. Another question that Andrea can clear up ?!"

Yep, this is one for Andrea I think!

[flash]

I concur with your conclusions there Keith - that does make much more sense now :thumbsup:

[Carl_Brisgamer]

The rule never says a single damage card... that is the way you read it and your emphases on the word "single", which never appears in the text at all.

Having re-read it my self a couple of times, I will concede that the Perfect Aim +1 does not apply to both damage cards at close range, but I stand by that you do not have to pick if it applies to the first or second card before it is drawn. The rule says " When firing, this ace may choose to have his opponent take one additional dame point when his attack inflicts damage." Emphases on attack applied by me. At close range, your attack is two damage cards. You have to decide to use the ace skill before the cards are drawn (to keep you honest in using it if they are both zeros), but not apply it to a certain card.



Yep, this is one for Andrea I think!

Herr Oberst,

I agree with the wording regarding the attacks, however after that I took it to be one card, a single card, as the text of Perfect Aim reads "to remember that THE card causes extra damage keep it on the '+1 damage' space on the target airplane console" (my emphasis on THE). It could be that the intent is actually 'card or cards', but it does not say that in the RAW.

Looking back over previous iterations of the rules and clarifications from Andrea it would seem that Perfect Aim has been tweaked over the past 4 years. The original wording I have from 2009 (before recovery counters were introduced) was simply "Perfect Aim: once per turn, the pilot can decide to use the +1 Aim bonus even if he did not shoot to the same plane in the previous phase. Once this ability is used, it can not be re-used for the rest of the turn." Back then I read and employed the rule that Perfect Aim is the same as the Aim bonus (ie +1 to both cards at close range), just that the Ace Pilot can use it on the first shot. As it was the same as an Aim bonus, Perfect Aim was also subject to Disruption, something I don't think Andrea had forseen following some email correspondence we had at the time. Perhaps this was a trade off in the new rules - only adds +1 to one card but not subject to disruption.

It will be interesting to see Andrea's current view on the subject.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

It would be nice to have a ruling on this from Andrea so there can be no doubt as to the 'letter of the law'.
(By the way is Andrea's nickname Dredd by any chance?:lol::lol::lol::lol:)

[wargamer]

I thought he expressed it nicely when he pointed out there are two damage spots on the cockpit control card, one for normal damage and one for +1.

There being no other, there is no possibility of any other result. Clear now?

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

I thought he expressed it nicely when he pointed out there are two damage spots on the cockpit control card, one for normal damage and one for +1.

There being no other, there is no possibility of any other result. Clear now?

Al, who are you referring to? If you are answering a query then please add a quote. Andrea mentioned at the beginning, of the +1 slot and the non+1 slot positions on the flight card. I personally don't have a problem with this and understand the meaning of the 2 card slots. What I could not understand as it was not clear was where the +1 aim and perfect aim are added, ie which card or cards. Your He expressed it clearly is about as clear as mud in a deep puddle in no-mans land. All I am asking for is Andrea to clear this whole misunderstanding one way or the other....or is my meaning not clear to you?

(What a way to pass your 500th mission!):( I'm off to the mess anyone care to join me for lots of.......:pint::pint::pint::pint::pint:
:singin::singin::singin::singin: and trying to get :drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk:

[Oberst Hajj]

I thought he expressed it nicely when he pointed out there are two damage spots on the cockpit control card, one for normal damage and one for +1.

There being no other, there is no possibility of any other result. Clear now?

But we are not discussing (at least now) if it is a +1 or +2, just if you have to assign it to either card one or card two of a close range shot.



Herr Oberst,

I agree with the wording regarding the attacks, however after that I took it to be one card, a single card, as the text of Perfect Aim reads "to remember that THE card causes extra damage keep it on the '+1 damage' space on the target airplane console" (my emphasis on THE). It could be that the intent is actually 'card or cards', but it does not say that in the RAW.

I think that comes down to singular/plural verbiage. Similar to using he/she. It could also come down to reducing the amount of text for the rules. Whatever he case, I'll see if Andrea can answer it for us.

[Oberst Hajj]

The rule as written in the RAP:


Perfect Aim: When firing, this ace may choose to have his opponent take one additional damage point when his attack inflicts damage. To remember that the card causes extra damage, keep it on the "+1 damage" space on the target airplane console. A card inflicting zero damage is still considered a zero.

You must decide to use this skill before your opponent draws the damage card. When you sue this skill, take three recovery counters.

Note the bonus granted by this skill is not cumulative with the bonus granted by the Aim optional rule (page19), if that rule is in use.

Our question:


When using this skill and shooting at close range, does the +1 apply to either (not both) of the two cards? Or does the ace have to declare he is using his skill on the first or second damage card to be drawn from that close range attack?

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

My point exactly, well put Oberst. (Keith)


The rule as written in the RAP:



Our question:

[wargamer]

Yes. Both cards. Since the instruction only states "the card", it must apply to both since we must keep the rules to the KISS principal. Coming up with interpretations of "if then but" would not be within the KISS principal.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Kissing's for girls....

[Пилот]

What if the first firing is "0", and second firing (next maneuver) makes some damage? Does shooter (which is not shot at) gets +1 bonus for consecutive shooting? (I think he does, but you never know...)

[wargamer]

Kissing's for girls....

Right, sarcasm again? Keep It Simple Stu###

[Watchdog]

What if the first firing is "0", and second firing (next maneuver) makes some damage? Does shooter (which is not shot at) gets +1 bonus for consecutive shooting? (I think he does, but you never know...)

There is nothing in the rules contradicting this.

[Oberst Hajj]

Andrea said he would answer the quested I posted as soon as he has time.

[Angiolillo]

I am also doing a check with Ares on a detail. Please be patient, they are close on weekends.

Thanks so much,

Andrea

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Oh is that what it means....:lol:.....didn't know that one :rolleyes::slysmile:. How about the 7 P's? Anybody know that one?:hmm:


Right, sarcasm again? Keep It Simple Stu###

[Omegalazarus]

The 7 P's principle is especially good at keeping things from becoming FUBAR due to the unfortunately common SNAFU experience. Do this to understand -------> :drinks: or just do this -------> :surrender: :lol:


Thanks for everyone checking into this. It is a pretty nuanced rule and I can see how the multiple points of view still make sense based on how we look at the rule.

"Perfect Aim: When firing, this ace may choose to have his opponent take one additional damage point when his attack inflicts damage*. To remember that the card* causes extra damage, keep it on the "+1 damage" space on the target airplane console. A card inflicting zero damage is still considered a zero.

You must decide to use this skill before your opponent draws the damage card. When you sue this skill, take three recovery counters.

Note the bonus granted by this skill is not cumulative with the bonus granted by the Aim optional rule (page19), if that rule is in use." - RAP

"The Card" makes it seem that it adds to only one card. Then, which one? As OberstHajj said, the "whenever his attack inflicts damage" shows that it could default to any one of the cards that is a non-zero, since that other card would not cause damage.

Of course, you could also look at it this way. Airplanes only attack once per turn. That attack causes 1 card at long range and 2 cards at short range (notionally due to accuracy etc.), but it is still one attack (as a single gun can only make a single attack as stated in the rule book somewhere and is common knowledge). If it were two attacks, the rules would likely allow you to split fire between 2 targets in range, which it clearly does not (so please don't point out that is doesn't as I know this).

So, with that in mind, a close range attack has the potential to cause damage twice (once for each card). With that in mind, "whenever his attack inflicts damage" could happen twice. It could inflict damage once for each card of a single close range attack.
The crux against this is the mention of adding damage to "the card" which I chalk up to the nuance of the English language (using a slightly less favorable article "the" instead of "a" when translating rules).

So there are a few things going on since it could be a word error, or it could be that "whenever [it] inflicts damage" could just restate that zero's don't give a plus one and not imply that the card doesn't need to 'seek out' the non-zero card of a two card draw. It could be that you blindly pick the card it applies to and may be unlucky enough to pick a zero and waste the ability.

We will have to wait for Andrea to get back, of course. I just wanted to comment a bit since I was one of the ones with the question that stirred all this up and I hadn't posted back about it.

[fast.git]

So, with that in mind, a close range attack has the potential to cause damage twice (once for each card). With that in mind, "whenever his attack inflicts damage" could happen twice. It could inflict damage once for each card of a single close range attack.

FWIW, I disagree with this principle. Although a close range shot does two cards worth of damage, I interpret this to mean that the damage potential is that much greater due to the reduced range and resultant increase in accuracy... or somesuch. Therefore, despite the fact that you're drawing two cards, you are only damaging your target once. As such, I would think that the +1 applies to either card, but not both.

This is, however, just my opinion/interpretation... I look forward to hearing what the powers-that-be rule.

Cheers!

[Flying Officer Kyte]

FWIW, I disagree with this principle. Although a close range shot does two cards worth of damage, I interpret this to mean that the damage potential is that much greater due to the reduced range and resultant increase in accuracy... or somesuch. Therefore, despite the fact that you're drawing two cards, you are only damaging your target once. As such, I would think that the +1 applies to either card, but not both.

This is, however, just my opinion/interpretation... I look forward to hearing what the powers-that-be rule.

Cheers!

My guess is that if you do extra damage and one card is a O it means that your damage was not as good as it might have been, but that as it is "extra" the card that is remaining, and has done it's share of "extra" damage should get the bonus ascribed to it. If two cards score, one of them has a plus one.
Rob.

[flash]

FWIW, I disagree with this principle. Although a close range shot does two cards worth of damage, I interpret this to mean that the damage potential is that much greater due to the reduced range and resultant increase in accuracy... or somesuch. Therefore, despite the fact that you're drawing two cards, you are only damaging your target once. As such, I would think that the +1 applies to either card, but not both.

This is, however, just my opinion/interpretation... I look forward to hearing what the powers-that-be rule. Cheers!

This is about where I got to with Herr Obersts help Chris ie The +1 goes on the total of the two cards drawn at close range.
(eg a 0/4 drawn +1 = 5, put the 4 in the +1 box; a 2/2 drawn +1 = 5 put a 2 in the +1 box, and a 0/0 draw still = 0)

[Oberst Hajj]

Spot on for the way I see it Dave.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

That is the clearest definition I have seen. I think you are spot on with this, it certainly makes sense to me. Until I hear otherwise from Andrea this is how I shall interpret the rule.


This is about where I got to with Herr Obersts help Chris ie The +1 goes on the total of the two cards drawn at close range.
(eg a 0/4 drawn +1 = 5, put the 4 in the +1 box; a 2/2 drawn +1 = 5 put a 2 in the +1 box, and a 0/0 draw still = 0)

[Carl_Brisgamer]

This is about where I got to with Herr Obersts help Chris ie The +1 goes on the total of the two cards drawn at close range.
(eg a 0/4 drawn +1 = 5, put the 4 in the +1 box; a 2/2 drawn +1 = 5 put a 2 in the +1 box, and a 0/0 draw still = 0)

The issue I see with this is that it is open to error or abuse given the 'secret' damage rule. I think it must either be both cards go on the +1 stack (just like the Aim rule and how Perfect Aim used to work back in the early days of Ace skills), or the firer chooses one card blind and that chosen card goes on the +1 pile (0 or not).

[fast.git]

The issue I see with this is that it is open to error or abuse given the 'secret' damage rule.

I'm glad I don't have to deal with that level of dishonesty in the games we play. :)

If we wanted to be certain, however, that everything was above board, I suppose we could just add the +1 to each and every attack, even if the card drawn was a zero. That way, you're adding the +1 regardless.

:thumbsup: :guns:

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Dave actually put what I was trying to say in a much more succinct way. Thanks Dave.
As far as cheating goes, most of the chaps I've played with over the years would not stoop to such levels just to shoot my plastic plane down. If somebody wanted to gain an advantage of one point in this way, I would feel really sorry for him in his sad little world, :( and then ensure that I dealt a "Bang" card from the bottom of the deck the next time he took a hit.
Rob.:guns:

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Just looked at the old Burning Drachens rule book:


When a plane firing at the same plane from the same gun (front or rear) for consecutive rounds, it can fire with more accuracy. From the second consecutive phase of fire onward, even from one turn to the next, all non-zero damage cards score one additional damage point. Zero's still cause no damage.

hope this helps.

Neil

[fast.git]

That seems clear enough... thanks!

So... as of BD, the rule was: +1 to any and all non-zero damage cards. I think I can remember that. :thumbsup:

I'll have to go back and compare the pertinent text in BD to what's in the RAP.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Yep thats straight out of the book Page 8 under AIM.

That seems clear enough... thanks!

So... as of BD, the rule was: +1 to any and all non-zero damage cards. I think I can remember that. :thumbsup:

I'll have to go back and compare the pertinent text in BD to what's in the RAP.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

I don't think the Aim bonus is in question here, it's whether or not Perfect Aim works just like the Aim bonus.

As I stated in a previous post, when Ace Skills first came out Perfect Aim was treated the same as the Aim bonus (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?13824-1-damage-bonuses-cumulative&p=204404&viewfull=1#post204404). The WGS RAP wording is not as clear-cut, and that is what needs to be cleared up. Personally I liked it the way it used to be, as a straight forward first round Aim bonus also subject to Disruption.

As regards cheating, I ran a campaign in 2009-10 with more than 100 players from young kids to very mature gentlemen, many I whom I did not know before they started playing. With such a large group there was a very small minority who, perhaps because they were hyper-competitive or for some other pathological reason known only to themselves, sometime strayed from the letter and the spirit of the game. When you have a campaign the integrity of the gameplay is very important, because if one person if found to be cheating other players can take it hard. When you show your cards at the end of the game the secret special damage is obvious (except perhaps the turn limitations), but it would not be obvious which cards were drawn in the case of application of Perfect Aim if only one card of the two make it to the +1 pile we rely on the targeted player to make the appropriate choice.

I suppose what I am saying is that if the rules can take away the opportunity or temptation to make 'a deliberate error' then it is be a good thing.

[Пилот]

That rule allows shooter to see 0 damage card, then. And what about the other one? Should shooter see it, or should other card immediately go to the box?

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

The only true answer may lie in using a damage track, and count or tick off the damage boxes, but there again you are trusting the person to tick off the added +1's too. That way used cards can be filtered back into a used card pile, reshuffled and used again.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

:lol:You chaps have just reminded me why in 40 years of War gaming I have refused to take part in a serious competition.
Rob.

[Angiolillo]

I am sorry for all the confusion that the wording of this rule caused.

In my intention, the Perfect aim works as the Aim bonus - so it is a +1 on each non-0 card taken, not cumulative with the aim itself. Or, if you prefer, it is again the Aim bonus applied even if you are not shooting at the same target from the previuous fire phase.
If you take two cards for a short range shot, it then applies to both.

As Carl noticed, this is the way the rule was originally released. The emphasis on "one additional damage point when his attack inflicts damage" has been put later during editing, but still the intention of editors was that it applied on both card. As if a short range attack inflicts damage two times, and each time the bonus applies.
After your very careful examination of the text, I must admit that the wording is pretty ambiguous. We will correct it in future editions and translations, and put a correctioon in the FAQ as soon as possible.

Sorry, really. And thanks so much for noticing.

[Carl_Brisgamer]

Thanks for taking the time to settle this Andrea, much appreciated.

I have to ask, as I know this has come up before and will come up again, given Perfect Aim works the same as the Aim bonus, is it still subject to the Disruption rule?

Cheers,

Carl.

[fast.git]

Absolutely love this about this game... thanks for the response & clarification.

[Lt. S.Kafloc]

Cheers Andrea. You've cleared the muddy waters again.

[Пилот]

Thanks for taking the time to settle this Andrea, much appreciated.

I have to ask, as I know this has come up before and will come up again, given Perfect Aim works the same as the Aim bonus, is it still subject to the Disruption rule?

Cheers,

Carl.
So, no bonus if anybody or anything damages you?

[Angiolillo]

In Dawn of War, where the original version o ftebrule has been published, the skill allowed you to use the Aim bonus even if you did not shoot at the target in the previous phase. So it was the same bonus, with the same limitations of that one (disruption - no bonus if damages are taken). The actual furmulation is indeed ambuguous.

[celticgriffon]

I'm glad I don't have to deal with that level of dishonesty in the games we play. :)

If we wanted to be certain, however, that everything was above board, I suppose we could just add the +1 to each and every attack, even if the card drawn was a zero. That way, you're adding the +1 regardless.

:thumbsup: :guns:

We play with the rule that any card which is put into the +1 slot is always +1 (even if a 0).

Sure this means that planes will die a bit sooner but it a) makes things easier to calculate in the heat of battle and 2) gives incentive to maneuvre in such a way as to gain a +1 advantage.

Michael

[diceslinger]

We play with the rule that any card which is put into the +1 slot is always +1 (even if a 0).

Sure this means that planes will die a bit sooner but it a) makes things easier to calculate in the heat of battle and 2) gives incentive to maneuvre in such a way as to gain a +1 advantage.

Michael

I have always leaned towards this. I figure getting close should result in always getting at least 1 point of damage. That is the point of getting close, so you don't miss! It captures the essence of pilots like Guenemmer who were successful because they alway got close before firing.

[7eat51]

I will place both cards, when shot at close range, in the +1 slot, knowing that when tallying up hits, zero cards will not receive the +1.

In response to the "Italian math", as I heard it described at Origins, the Romans did not have a zero early on. Therefore, it makes perfectly good sense that 0 + 1 = 0, for we're not talking about anything in reality, as there is no zero. ;)

In response to posts 45, 46, and 51 on cheating, as a teacher, when I decided to forego creating classes that would prevent cheaters from getting by with cheating, to creating classes that were oriented towards more creative work that had greater reliance on student honesty, both my teaching experience and the learning experience of my students greatly improved. As I aimed towards the better students, if you will, motivation all around increased. Some, to be sure, take advantage of the situation, but in the end, they lose because they are developing their characters in such a way that they will find themselves isolated in the future, and their lack of skill and knowledge will eventually become apparent to others. I think a similar train of thought applies here. If folks want to cheat at games, eventually they will have a hard time finding fellow gamers, and their lack of true game skill will become apparent. In the meantime, focusing on a rule system that is welcoming (easy and intuitive), even if it has potential for abuse, will attract more players and create better experiences for all. One of the important things to remember in group games is the interaction among players as a whole. If an individual plays in such a way as to illegitimately differentiate themselves from the pack, the pack can still enjoy each other and the game; I have experienced this with organized RPG games. Even if someone cheats to win such a substantial prize as a $15 mini, bless them and send them on their way, for cheaters will always find a way to cheat. As for people taking it hard, I always state up front with my classes that I realize some might cheat, and if they receive a better grade than they deserve, they will eventually pay for it, so in the meantime, I will spend my energy with those who care and desire to learn. It sets the tone for the conscientious students to not worry about others, but to drink deeply from their own experience; I will most likely do the same if I ever run a campaign. IMHO, the ultimate goal of a game is to have fun with others, win or lose. If the GM approaches it this way, I think most will follow.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

I will place both cards, when shot at close range, in the +1 slot, knowing that when tallying up hits, zero cards will not receive the +1.

In response to the "Italian math", as I heard it described at Origins, the Romans did not have a zero early on. Therefore, it makes perfectly good sense that 0 + 1 = 0, for we're not talking about anything in reality, as there is no zero. ;)

In response to posts 45, 46, and 51 on cheating, as a teacher, when I decided to forego creating classes that would prevent cheaters from getting by with cheating, to creating classes that were oriented towards more creative work that had greater reliance on student honesty, both my teaching experience and the learning experience of my students greatly improved. As I aimed towards the better students, if you will, motivation all around increased. Some, to be sure, take advantage of the situation, but in the end, they lose because they are developing their characters in such a way that they will find themselves isolated in the future, and their lack of skill and knowledge will eventually become apparent to others. I think a similar train of thought applies here. If folks want to cheat at games, eventually they will have a hard time finding fellow gamers, and their lack of true game skill will become apparent. In the meantime, focusing on a rule system that is welcoming (easy and intuitive), even if it has potential for abuse, will attract more players and create better experiences for all. One of the important things to remember in group games is the interaction among players as a whole. If an individual plays in such a way as to illegitimately differentiate themselves from the pack, the pack can still enjoy each other and the game; I have experienced this with organized RPG games. Even if someone cheats to win such a substantial prize as a $15 mini, bless them and send them on their way, for cheaters will always find a way to cheat. As for people taking it hard, I always state up front with my classes that I realize some might cheat, and if they receive a better grade than they deserve, they will eventually pay for it, so in the meantime, I will spend my energy with those who care and desire to learn. It sets the tone for the conscientious students to not worry about others, but to drink deeply from their own experience; I will most likely do the same if I ever run a campaign. IMHO, the ultimate goal of a game is to have fun with others, win or lose. If the GM approaches it this way, I think most will follow.

I totally agree Eric.
The cheaters will inevitably miss out on socially rich experiences. They may not ever know this, but whilst appearing to win they are ultimately losers, and as you only get one crack at life you should seek to optimise every opportunity to enrich it.
Rob.