View Full Version : Raking Shot Example (Page 26 of Rulebook)

The rules for raking shots say that frontal shots get one additional damage counter for every three (rounded up), and rear raking shots get one additional damage counter for ever two (rounded up).

One of the examples given is this:

"A raking shot across the front side of HMS Defence from the Genereux (Firepower 7) would inflict 3 additional counters (7 divided by 3 and rounded up), for a total of 10 counters."

I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding the rule, or if this example is wrong. Isn't 7 divided by 3 equal to 2 1/3, which would round down to 2? So the Defense would take 9 damage counters, and not 10 as the rulebook says?

David Manley

11-06-2013, 17:17

The rules for raking shots say that frontal shots get one additional damage counter for every three (rounded up), and rear raking shots get one additional damage counter for ever two (rounded up).

I think you had the answer there all the time

I saw some beautiful raking shots in the demo games I ran. They can be truly devastating, especially when drawing B-damage chits. This is one area in which players need to recognize that taken aback is not necessarily a bad thing, but can be a useful maneuvering tactic to set up such shots.

I think you had the answer there all the time

I suppose it has been too long since I had a math class. To me 'rounded up' means that a result over .5 does round up to the next full number (so I thought the rule was affirming that 2.5 or up would round up to 3...basically saying that you should round and not ignore the fractions). I've never heard before of rounding from .3 up to the next whole number. Thanks for the clarification.

fredmiracle

11-06-2013, 18:24

This is one area in which players need to recognize that taken aback is not necessarily a bad thing, but can be a useful maneuvering tactic to set up such shots.

Just curious--is that a historically-accurate type of maneuver?

Yes it was. I have read of it being used in battle.

The Royal Hajj

11-06-2013, 20:22

It does not go by .5 as is normal for rounding in math, but any thing above x.0 is rounded up in this case. It does not seem to make much sense in the example, but run through it with a very damaged ship that is only dealing one damage chit per shot. If it get's a raking shot off, standard math would say that 1 divided by 3 equals .33, so would not get any bonus for the rake. By rounding up any fraction of a number, a raking show will always give you at least an extra chit of damage.

RichardPF

11-06-2013, 21:53

I suppose it has been too long since I had a math class. To me 'rounded up' means that a result over .5 does round up to the next full number (so I thought the rule was affirming that 2.5 or up would round up to 3...basically saying that you should round and not ignore the fractions). I've never heard before of rounding from .3 up to the next whole number. Thanks for the clarification.

While standard rounding at .5 is the most well known way to resolve decimals, standard math terminology includes floor and ceiling which are used to round down (truncate) or round up.

These concepts are also widely used in computer programming to the point that most languages have built in functions for them.

I agree with Hajj's interpretation, including basic motivation of such rule (to allow even to the damaged ship to gain advantage based on tactically better position).

But, one who doesn't read the given pictured Example, could have wrong interpretation of this rule, as rule exactly says "...every three (rounding up)...", and give extra counter on full three (and not one or two).

I saw some beautiful raking shots in the demo games I ran. They can be truly devastating, especially when drawing B-damage chits. This is one area in which players need to recognize that taken aback is not necessarily a bad thing, but can be a useful maneuvering tactic to set up such shots.

Good man, you noticed it as a positive!!! :hatsoff::shootright:

Andy Blozinski

11-29-2013, 16:45

I agree with Hajj's interpretation, including basic motivation of such rule (to allow even to the damaged ship to gain advantage based on tactically better position).

But, one who doesn't read the given pictured Example, could have wrong interpretation of this rule, as rule exactly says "...every three (rounding up)...", and give extra counter on full three (and not one or two).

It's amazingly clear. It says you round up, so that's what you do. How could this be interpreted as rounding down?

If you divide, yes. And I don't argue that. It's as clear as it can be. But, when rules say "every three" (even with "rounding up") someone could get it wrong.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.