Hazard from AT?

[MIB 1473]

From CWRQ:
Do ATGs still give a D1 hazard when fired?
There are contradictory rulings on this and it isn't real clear what is more recent. Both the Compendium and UACFH state that firing a front or back mounted ATG is a D1 hazard, and that they cannot be side mounted. However, errata for the Compendium state that there is no penalty for firing front or back mounted ATGs and that you can fire them from a side mount at a D1 hazard. I am going to go with the ruling that ATGs do give a D1 hazard when fired from the front or back and cannot be side mounted.

This came up in the duel Saturday night, and given the confusion I thought it made sense to discuss it here.

Opinions?

[Glenn Jupp]

Now, MIB knows my opinion on this, but now that it's an open topic I guess I should share. :)

I am going to go with the ruling that ATGs do give a D1 hazard when fired from the front or back and cannot be side mounted.

Note the first-person perspective in that? That's Eric Freeman talking. He wants to run the game like that? So it goes. Buddy-next-to-you agrees with Eric? Then when Buddy runs a game, ATG's kick hard. But...

But I have the 3rd edition revised pocket box, Compendium 2.1, and "Classic" Car Wars. Nowhere in them does it say anything about fore/aft mounted ATG's causing cars a D1 hazard, but they do say that it can't be side mounted. So when I run the game, that's how it'll play. Except...

Except the errata to Catalogue Hell, dated 2007 May 3rd, says something else again. And being dated so recently, and being SJGames official errata, I'm inclined to go with that. At least the errata page is readily available, unlike Catalogue Hell.

(Oh, that was uncalled for. True, but uncalled for.)

But that's just me.

Whoever the GM is should tell folks ahead of time that, for example, "We'll be following only CWC 2.5, UACfH, and CWRQ and ODQ, and nothing else counts," or whatever they actually believe in. If it's not said ahead of time, hey, the GM still gets the last word. That's what the GM is for, after all.

So... there! :P

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by MIB 1473

Opinions?

I use DCW1's rule book -- *Heck yes* ATGs still kick. :)

Just because some lazy editor deleted a line of text in order to make sure the
book stayed within its page-limit doesn't make it right.

[kjamma4]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

Just because some lazy editor deleted a line of text in order to make sure the book stayed within its page-limit doesn't make it right.

Are you sure they just didn't change the rule for the sake of change?

[Either that, or they are out to get you.] ;)

[Norcross]

UACFH has the D1 hazard, so that's what I would go with (it really seems to me to be the "best" source - it consistently makes sense and I've disliked pretty much every change they've made since it).

But from the ODQ:

What is the hazard if I fire twin ATGs and have HD shocks?

Since the weapons are fired together, I'm going to treat them as a D2 total, and HD shocks only subtract once from the total not from each. So a D1 hazard is the result as opposed to a D0. Same thing for twin HDVMGs.

I'd say that means ATGs still have a hazard.

And the real clincher, from CWRQ v4.3:

Do ATGs still give a D1 hazard when fired?

There are contradictory rulings on this and it isn't real clear what is more recent. Both the Compendium and UACFH state that firing a front or back mounted ATG is a D1 hazard, and that they cannot be side mounted. However, errata for the Compendium state that there is no penalty for firing front or back mounted ATGs and that you can fire them from a side mount at a D1 hazard. I am going to go with the ruling that ATGs do give a D1 hazard when fired from the front or back and cannot be side mounted.

This is what brought up the question, but it also seems to answer that same question :-)

[Glenn Jupp]

Hey, I'm not going to begrudge anyone for their preferences in rules and rulings. But there is a position that I don't quite "get," and I would appreciate it if someone would explain their reasoning behind it.

Now, I can understand full well why the CWRQ and ODQ lists are so highly regarded. I like 'em, too. But when there is an errata sheet newer than the FAQs, and presumably supersedes the FAQs in "officialness," it seems that folks still prefer the FAQs. Why is that?

[Parody]

If you look at the results from the Wayback Machine, you'll see that the errata on that page hasn't actually changed since at least 1998, making the CWRQ/ODQ the newer source.

My guess is that the date is actually the file's last modified date/time. Whenever they change that file in any way (in the May 2007 version they updated it from the old black background to the "new" white background) the new date/time is shown. Not so useful if there's no substantive changes. :(

ObTopic: SPARK is sticking to the CWRQ/ODQ ruling, FWIW.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by kjamma4

Are you sure they just didn't change the rule for the sake of change?

"Never attribute to Malice what can be adequately explained by Stupidity." :)

Actually, I base that statement on how the page-length of the rulebook is
forever being mentioned in the editorial notes in ADQ and elsewhere -- why
remove it except to come in under a set page limit?

Originally Posted by kjamma4

[Either that, or they are out to get you.] ;)

Well, when "duels" became overrun with Fast, High-Handling, Minimally-Armed
cars, while "races" were dominated by Slow, Ill-handling Gunships, I sort-of
developed that impression.... :P

[Glenn Jupp]

Originally Posted by Parody

...you'll see that the errata on that page hasn't actually changed since at least 1998, making the CWRQ/ODQ the newer source.

Ah, hadn't known about that. Thanks.

[ShotGun_Jolly]

This topic came up before...


took me the last few days to find it.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...80&postcount=1

I thought the same as Glenn, figured the errata came out and it was overwritten,

Personally, I was floored when I found this rule in the errata page. But I was happy to see that it was reversed in the CWRQ.

But I do want to stick with what is offical.. and at this point, we really dont know what is.

Personally, who is to stop a person from mounting one from the side.. if I was playing a rpg, and wanted to shoe horn one onto the side.. then I will. But I would make it a D3 or more when fired.

Thats like the rule at first (pocket box rules) when FTs cant be mounted on the front.. but it was no problem to mount one on the back and drive in reverse. They changed that over time.. I am starting to think, that that errata was posted in a way to fix that same type of problem..

I am opposed to house rules, simply becuase they can get out of hand quickly and then its always a pain to explain to someone new to the group the reasons why a rule was made, and it sucks when you forget one untill it happens in the game!

I need to think about this...