Dwarf Stone Thrower - Calculating Short range

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Dwarf Stone Thrower - Calculating Short range

    Hi,

    How would one calculate short and long range from a Dwarven Holds (Or any) Stone Thrower or similar device.

    Range being defined as: The area of variation between upper and lower limits on a particular scale.

    My perspective: The range is 12-60" so when calculating short/long range, the range of the weapon is 48", so short range would be within 24" of the start of the range.

    This would mean that when the 12" from the beginning (which is not part of the range) is added, targets up to 36" away from the model would be short range.

    Am I incorrect? If so, is there a written clarification?



    Please keep watching my show 'All My Circuits'. Christmas Special coming soon.
  • Yea thanks but that doesn't actually address the issue of what range is and how its defined, or answer the question.

    The rule states "If the distance from the shooting model to the target is more than half the weapon’s range, the shooting model suffersa −1 to-hit modifier. Remember that you measure range for each shooting model individually."

    'The weapons range' - That first 12" is not in the weapons range but is still used to calculate range modifiers?

    Range isn't 0"-60" its 12"-60". So if it is 30", the fact the first 12" of that 60" are not in the weapon's range has no bearing on the maths whatsoever and you get an extra 6" of short range based on something that is not in 'The weapons range' just because?

    The fact that you can use distances not actually in the range of the weapon to calculate range modifiers seems a bit odd.
  • Nah I call bull on that.

    Clearly I made an error in the original post, by saying it would be 36”.

    However the concept of using distances not in the weapons range, to measure the weapons range, is out and out ridiculous.

    As you say ‘exactly what is written’.

    What is written is ‘half the weapons range’. The first 12” are clearly and unequivocally not in the weapons range, so should not be counted as part of the weapons range, as it wouldn’t be counted as within range during shooting. That’s what’s written. It’s not ‘half the maximum firing distance’ which would make it 30” and I can’t find anything written to support that.

    That would mean that units within 12” would be in range, as that 12” is included in making the calculation and would therefore count as the ‘weapons range’.
  • Calculon wrote:

    Range being defined as: The area of variation between upper and lower limits on a particular scale.
    Yes, that is one possible definition. Another one is "the distance within which you can see, hear, or hit someone" (Cambridge Dictionary).

    That being said, rule-related terms in T9A do not always use their real-life definitions (e.g. Decimated literally means 10% casualties while in T9A it refers to 25%).

    When we talk about a shooting weapon's "range", we talk about its "maximum range":
    <
    21.F.b Shooting Weapons
    Each Shooting Weapon has a maximum range (...).
    >

    Some weapons also have a minimum range on top of that:
    <
    14.A.a Shooting With a Unit
    • If the Shooting Attack has a minimum range, the model can only shoot if the target is at least partially outside the minimum range.
    >

    Accordingly, 14.C.a Long Range refers to the weapon's "maximum range", so shooting at anything that is farther away than 30" in your example is considered as shooting at long range, while anything else is short range. The weapon's minimum range is not relevant in that regard.
  • Yes, that is one possible definition. Another one is "the distance within which you can see, hear, or hit someone" (Cambridge Dictionary).

    I’m assuming we’re discounting see and hear as it’s the weapons rage that’s in question. So it would be hit someone, and you can’t hit someone at 11” with a stone thrower so how can it be considered “distance within which you can hit someone” when it’s not?

    The distance within which you can hit someone with a stone thrower is 48”. The distance within the limits of min/max range.

    I don’t know, I’m happy to accept the point but I can’t justify it.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Calculon ().

  • Eisenheinrich wrote:

    Calculon wrote:

    Range being defined as: The area of variation between upper and lower limits on a particular scale.
    Yes, that is one possible definition. Another one is "the distance within which you can see, hear, or hit someone" (Cambridge Dictionary).
    That being said, rule-related terms in T9A do not always use their real-life definitions (e.g. Decimated literally means 10% casualties while in T9A it refers to 25%).

    When we talk about a shooting weapon's "range", we talk about its "maximum range":
    <
    21.F.b Shooting Weapons
    Each Shooting Weapon has a maximum range (...).
    >

    Some weapons also have a minimum range on top of that:
    <
    14.A.a Shooting With a Unit
    • If the Shooting Attack has a minimum range, the model can only shoot if the target is at least partially outside the minimum range.
    >

    Accordingly, 14.C.a Long Range refers to the weapon's "maximum range", so shooting at anything that is farther away than 30" in your example is considered as shooting at long range, while anything else is short range. The weapon's minimum range is not relevant in that regard.
    Also thank you for clarifying the issue!
  • I still don’t think the question has been adequately answered or explained and has basically come down to ‘because we said so’ and ‘when we say X, we actually mean You which is most disappointing and considering the ‘rules as written’ interpretation,

    The definition of range given by Eisenheinrich does not support the argument he made. 0-12” is not ‘distance within which you can hit someone’ because you can’t hit someone at 11” and is therefore not ‘range’.

    When we talk about a shooting weapon's "range", we talk about its "maximum range": - the use of 3 terms, min range, max range and range would imply differences between the three. To say two of the terms are interchangeable whilst the other is not, and without any credible explanation, is most baffling.

    Hey ho, is what it is.
  • Calculon wrote:

    The definition of range given by Eisenheinrich does not support the argument he made.
    You misunderstood what I was trying to say.

    T9A does not use real-life definitions of the terms used in the rules. And how could it? For most (all?) terms, there are several different possible meanings depending on context, so the BRB defines these terms.
    For "range", it does so - together with the other parameters used in the context of shooting weapons - in 21.F.b Shooting Weapons, as quoted above.
    There is no part of the rules that I am aware of that suggests that "range" refers to anything other than "maximum range".
  • Eisenheinrich wrote:

    Calculon wrote:

    so the BRB defines these terms.
    This is what I've been looking for, a codified definition of what Range actually is. So the BRB does not define these terms.

    There are many references to 'Each weapon has a maximum range' but nowhere does it say that this should be considered the actual ‘range’ of the weapon rather than the maximum firing distance, which is what it actually means.

    I will leave it here but it's fairly clear it needs defining in writing if real-life definitions are not used or considered applicable.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Calculon ().

  • Calculon wrote:

    Am I incorrect?
    Yes, but also no.

    Calculon wrote:

    If so, is there a written clarification?
    Not as such, it's just assumed that range = maximum range.

    Ideally it'll get changed from simply saying range (under 14.C.a Long Range, and maybe everywhere else) and letting the player assume they mean the maximum range, to actually saying maximum range so the player has nothing to assume.


    You're more than welcome to play short range for weapons like the dwarven holds stone thrower as 12"-36" rather than 0-30".
    If enough people play this way it'll need clarifying.
  • Your proposal is this formular:

    0"-12" (12" no shooting) | 12"-36" (24" SR) | 36"-60" (24" LR)

    But the formal logic, is making a difference between the three:
    * long range (more than half of the "range")
    * short range (not shooting in "long range")
    * range (describing it in 21.f.b also as "maximum range" and clearly referencing to a fixed value, as seen in the table under it, (if induced), rather than a linear area (if deduced), resulting in the catapult-typical doughnut-form on the field)

    So it is sadly not possible to use the description formular of long range, on the linear area, resulting in your proposal - but on the fixed value in the table. Resulting in the following:

    0"-12" | 12"-30" (18") | 30"-60" (30")

    The problem is therefore the following:
    The logical primate is the description, resulting in the value in the table under it. So you can not half the linear area - because from the rulebook perspective, this area does not exist.
    :DH: :OK: :O&G: