Jump to content


Photo

Air Combat, Non-Self Sealing Tanks Clarification


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 276 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 02 April 2010 - 05:54 AM

The Ammendment 1 changes to 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 make it that "All ODD rolls are Destroyed (X) results".So, for example, if you happen to be rolling on the 'F' Firing Pass line or ACE Factor 4 line, rolls of 7, 9 and 11 get you an 'X', right?What about a roll of 5, which is a 'D' on the table? Does that 'D' become an 'X', or do you do 'X + D'?For a roll of 3, you already do an 'X'. Is that it, or do you do '2 X'?For a roll of 1, you already do 'X + D'. Is that it, or do you do '2X + D'?Thanks...

#2 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 02 April 2010 - 04:21 PM

This question is right up my alley! The number of damage results does not change. So a result of "2X" is still two shot down planes. What changes is the effect of damaged results "D." It is not correct that a result with a dash, "," becomes an "X." Only "D" results are affected. When a NST aircraft, say the early Zero, has a "D" result, if it is an even result, say a '6,' then the Zero is damaged as usual. However, if it receives a "D" result with a '5' an odd number then the "D" result converts to an "X." This simulates the ease with which a hit could bring down this bird, but still maintains its high ACE factor which makes it hard to hit.I hope this helps.

#3 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 276 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 03 April 2010 - 06:17 AM

Thanks for the quick response.I kind of thought it was an aweful big swing that any odd result gave you a kill, but the wording "All ODD rolls are Destroyed (X) results" seemed to be that way. Maybe in Ammendment 2 thay can clarify to say " For ODD rolls, Damaged (D) results become Destroyed (X) results."

#4 Blue Leader

Blue Leader

    Major

  • Deactivated
  • 400 posts

Posted 03 April 2010 - 03:17 PM

We will look at the rule to insure clarity. Thanks for the feedback.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users