Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Band of Brothers: Screaming Eagles» Forums » Rules

Subject: Long range fire modifier question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bob Wooster
United States
Waterbury
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
"He who runs with aggression, walks without dignity."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rule 6.0 states that when firing at long range, the FP is halved after all modifiers are applied. However is the extended example of play (section 99), a Russian squad fires at long range and the modifiers are applied after the firepower is halved.

Am I missing something? Which is the correct order: (1) halve the FP then apply modifiers, or (2) apply modifiers then halve the modified FP?

Thanks!
7 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Webster
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Tech & BoardGaming Nerd
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
temujin1206 wrote:
Rule 6.0 states that when firing at long range, the FP is halved after all modifiers are applied. However is the extended example of play (section 99), a Russian squad fires at long range and the modifiers are applied after the firepower is halved.

Am I missing something? Which is the correct order: (1) halve the FP then apply modifiers, or (2) apply modifiers then halve the modified FP?

Thanks!

I hope the developers respond to this. When I originally read that rule I was surprised by it but I didn't notice the discrepancy in the extended example. Other systems I'm familiar with only halve the FP and it isn't really clear why modifiers such as the target's terrain modifier would be halved as part of the overall resolution. I would also point out that on the Player Aid Card under Misc. Notes it states that "Long Range Infantry Fire is 1/2 Firepower (Rounded Down)". It doesn't mention modifiers at all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Wooster
United States
Waterbury
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
"He who runs with aggression, walks without dignity."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree, my guess is also that the extended example of play is correct and that FP is halved and then modifiers are applied. That seems to make more sense.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would guess the rule as written is correct and the example is wrong, but I could see it going either way. Halving it afterwards keeps everything proportionate. Otherwise modifiers have a larger (double) effect on long range fire vs normal. Unless the intent is for them to have a larger effect, because long range fire is that much more difficult (but that doesnt make sense for the positive modifiers -- I doubt it is easier to fire at targets moving in the open at long range).

I'm interested to see what Jim says.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Webster
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Tech & BoardGaming Nerd
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joshaubry wrote:
I would guess the rule as written is correct and the example is wrong, but I could see it going either way. Halving it afterwards keeps everything proportionate. Otherwise modifiers have a larger (double) effect on long range fire vs normal. Unless the intent is for them to have a larger effect, because long range fire is that much more difficult (but that doesnt make sense for the positive modifiers -- I doubt it is easier to fire at targets moving in the open at long range).

I'm interested to see what Jim says.

I don't believe it is a matter of scale; the effect is exactly the same regardless of distance, it is only the firepower that is lessened. If anything, halving the firepower is optimistic. The relative size of the target decreases with range, the ballistics become less consistent, gravity and wind have a much larger effect (especially with iron sights) and minor intervening obstacles such as terrain undulations, tree stumps and dust make spotting an enemy in cover extremely difficult, never mind shooting them.

It is definitely easier to spot an enemy moving in the open, the terrain modifiers for moving in open already have range attenuation, and you have more incentive to engage them at range (assuming they are headed your direction)!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Wooster
United States
Waterbury
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
"He who runs with aggression, walks without dignity."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joshaubry wrote:
I would guess the rule as written is correct and the example is wrong, but I could see it going either way. Halving it afterwards keeps everything proportionate. Otherwise modifiers have a larger (double) effect on long range fire vs normal. Unless the intent is for them to have a larger effect, because long range fire is that much more difficult (but that doesnt make sense for the positive modifiers -- I doubt it is easier to fire at targets moving in the open at long range).

I'm interested to see what Jim says.


I don't follow. If you apply modifiers after halving FP, they have the same effect, for example -2 for a stone house. If you apply all modifiers, then halve the FP, the modifier only has half of its normal range effect. In this case a stone house would essentially only give -1 at long range. This doesn't make sense to me. But like you, I am interested in hearing Jim's ruling.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If your normal FP is 6 and you are firing on a stone building, then it is reduced to 4 (33% reduction compared to firing at open ground). If you halve for range to 3 and then reduce by 2 for the stone building, it is now 1 (67% reduction compared to firing at open ground). Instead, if you halve after, it is 2 (33% reduction compared to firing at open ground).

So, there is double the penalty for firing at a cover terrain when at long range in addition to the penalty of long range fire itself.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Wooster
United States
Waterbury
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
"He who runs with aggression, walks without dignity."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joshaubry wrote:
If your normal FP is 6 and you are firing on a stone building, then it is reduced to 4 (33% reduction compared to firing at open ground). If you halve for range to 3 and then reduce by 2 for the stone building, it is now 1 (67% reduction compared to firing at open ground). Instead, if you halve after, it is 2 (33% reduction compared to firing at open ground).

So, there is double the penalty for firing at a cover terrain when at long range in addition to the penalty of long range fire itself.


Well it depends on how you look at it. Using your example above, firing at a stone building building at normal range reduces your chance to hit by 20% (from 60% to 40%).

But if you fire at long range and halve after all modifiers are considered, you chance of hitting only goes down by 10% (from 30% to 20%). And if you halve and then apply modifiers, the percentage reduction is 20% (30% to 10%), just like in the normal range case. I guess the latter makes more sense to me.

Essentially the modifiers are additive, but you're looking at it multiplicative (you'll get different %-age differences with different starting firepowers). I'm not saying I'm right, I think it's interesting to discuss and analyze this stuff. And you've given me another way to look at the situation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Webster
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Tech & BoardGaming Nerd
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joshaubry wrote:
So, there is double the penalty for firing at a cover terrain when at long range in addition to the penalty of long range fire itself.

A simple counter-example:

The target is concealed (-1) in the woods (-1) for a total modifier of -2. It is attacked with 6FP at long range. If you only halve the FP it gives a 6/2 - 2 = 1 attack. If you halve the total it gives (6-2)/2 = 2 attack. But if the target voluntarily dropped concealment it would still give a (6-1)/2 = 2 attack! The concealment would provide no benefit at long range!

Another way of looking at it is by intent. The lower FP encourages the player to avoid taking unlikely shots that waste ammo and give away their unit's position.

I'm a bit surprised Jim hasn't responded to this thread yet. I see he has recently commented in other threads.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Not saying I dont agree (I'm not sure which way I think is better), but I do have to quibble with the following point.

CaseyN60 wrote:
The concealment would provide no benefit at long range!


That's not true as an absolute statement, just for that particular scenario. You could equally say that the woods provide no benefit at long range. You could also say that a unit with 7 FP is no better because 7/2 - 1 = 2, so that 1 extra FP provides no additional benefit.

Looking at conceal on its own, 6/2 - 1 = 2 or (6-1)/2 = 2 with conceal, 6/2 = 3 without, so there is a benefit to conceal at long range.

Just at some point multiple modifiers provide no additional benefit and what that point is depends on the situation.

For example, using halving first, conceal provides no additional benefit if the target is in a stone building and the attacker's normal FP is 5 or lower.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I think debate is pretty much pointless here. Jim will chime in (the tone of god??) and answer the question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Webster
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Tech & BoardGaming Nerd
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joshaubry wrote:
Just at some point multiple modifiers provide no additional benefit and what that point is depends on the situation.

For example, using halving first, conceal provides no additional benefit if the target is in a stone building and the attacker's normal FP is 5 or lower.

True, but only because a long-range attack isn't possible with 0FP. Not exactly the same thing. Otherwise, additional modifiers always change the adjusted FP if halved first.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Krohn
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
badge
Ahhh....my misspent youth...
Avatar
mb
Sorry for the delay. Since there is a conflict, I am taking an extra breath to verify things with a couple of others. I mean I know how I have been playing, but I want to make sure that I am not missing anything.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Krohn
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
badge
Ahhh....my misspent youth...
Avatar
mb
Okay, official decision time:

I am changing the rule to line up with the example. The rule will now say something like:

Infantry may fire at a target at up to twice its normal Range, but its FP is halved (rounded down). This halving occurs before applying modifiers for Terrain and Situations.

The reason why I went this way is:

1. That is how I have been playing
2. It makes it even harder to hit dug in troops, but a little easier to hit troops moving in the open at long range

As for how this conflict entered into the rules, I think this one is on me. The language showed up in the rules drafts somewhere near the end of 2015. This is where I have a confession to make. During the development of a game, rules change and different variations get playtested. They sometimes gets mixed up in my head. I rarely use long range fire when I play and perhaps an old rule leaked out on that day? I'm not exactly sure. I asked my rules minions and they did not have any compelling reasons either way.
17 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Wooster
United States
Waterbury
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
"He who runs with aggression, walks without dignity."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jim, thank you for taking the time to look into it and giving us a definitive answer. Really enjoying the game so far!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.