| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
 |
|
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 15:03:39
Subject: I'm confused on assaults
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Feasting on the souls of unworthy opponents
|
I need some clarification or something, and if you can clarify, please put it in rules quotes / context such that I have a basis for argument against the person (store owner) who taught me.
My understanding of reacting to assaults on the second turn of assault:
Your unit A assaults my unit B. They are now locked in combat. Next turn, my unit C assaults your unit A. Unit B and C are attacking unit A, but unit A may only attack unit B.
That's how I learned, but a couple of folks in the forums here have told me that's wrong. Anyone with specific guidance, rules context?
I'm looking at page 41 of the rulebook about "multiple combats" and I think the following paragraph is being interpreted different ways:
ATTACKING
In multiple combats, when it is time for a model to attack, the following extra rules apply:
*Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.
-----------------------------------------
Some people seem to read that to mean that Unit B can only attack unit A. Others read it as Unit B reacts to Unit C's attack, and any models that are in base contact with unit C may choose to attack unit C if they wish.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 15:12:47
Subject: I'm confused on assaults
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Their problem is they are interpreting 'beginning of combat' as before assault move when it's actually after assault moves and charge reactions, before attacks.
|
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 15:18:02
Subject: I'm confused on assaults
|
 |
Sister Vastly Superior
Gig Harbor, WA
|
In an assault, all engaged models fight, in order of initiative, during each assault phase of both players. Should be under "Who can fight" and "who strikes first". Attacks may be divvied up between multiple units that are in range. A store owner telling you that is just plain wrong...
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/04 15:23:57
2000 pts SoB.
2000 pts Crimson Fists (WIP)
doomed-to-fight-until-killed-in-battle xenophobic psycho-indoctrinated super soldier warrior monks of an oppressive theocracy stuck in the past and declining while stifling under its own bureacracy and inability to react.
Vaktathi, defining Space Marines
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 15:42:40
Subject: I'm confused on assaults
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Feasting on the souls of unworthy opponents
|
don_mondo wrote:Their problem is they are interpreting 'beginning of combat' as before assault move when it's actually after assault moves and charge reactions, before attacks.
Is there somewhere that says that "beginning of combat" happens after assault moves and charge reactions and before attacks?
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 16:51:33
Subject: I'm confused on assaults
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Page 32, box witht eh assault phase summary, three parts
1 Move assault units
2. Defenders react
3. Resolve COMBATS
So you're not into the combat portion of the assault phase until after 1 and 2......................
|
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/04 20:10:32
Subject: I'm confused on assaults
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
don_mondo wrote:Page 32, box witht eh assault phase summary, three parts
1 Move assault units
2. Defenders react
3. Resolve COMBATS
So you're not into the combat portion of the assault phase until after 1 and 2......................
This is absolutely correct. I'd just like to add an argument for debates against TFG:
Beginning of combat HAS to be after 1 and 2, otherwise assaults would never take place, as assaulting units can't be in base until they've moved; If the beginning of combat was actually at the beginning of the assault PHASE, nobody at all would be able to attack on the first TURN of a combat. (Which might be an interesting house rule....)
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|