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.

But isn't Go to ground the new pinned? And i always thought a BT unit couldn't Zeal if it was pinned? Thought i could be wrong.

Red_Lives wrote:But isn't Go to ground the new pinned? And i always thought a BT unit couldn't Zeal if it was pinned? Thought i could be wrong.

Going to ground has replace the old pinned rule. If you read the rest of this thread you will see that units which have gone to ground are still affected by a great many things, they just cannot do anything of their own volition.

The Righteous Zeal rule, triggered by the enemy shooting at them forces them to move forward, but it does not alleviate the rest of the GTG penalties, therefore the unit makes the RZ move but then still cannot move shoot or assault in its next turn.


Righteous crawl indeed.

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:

Yakface said:
They'd get this 'bonus move' for Righteous Zeal but then they'd continue to be bound by the going to ground rules.

Agreed. I guess when they hit the deck and some of their comrades die, instead of stupidly standing up and charging into a hail of fire, they continue to crawl forward in the prone position.

Righteous Crawl, anyone?

CK

Haha, you think of it too linearly. They're zealous enough to keep running forward, but at some point someone gets the bright idea to hit the deck!

The peeps over at the B&C can't seem to get themselves straight on this one. They seem to be playing off of "Rules as I wish they were" instead of "Rules as written."

Imriel wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Except that in the example they give for falling back, it says that the unit "will return to normal immediately". IMO, the fallback example is just that, an example stating how a unit will react to enemy fire. So wouldn't the return to normal apply to ALL instances of a unit reacting to enemy fire?

... but will react normally if affected by enemy actions (for example, it will take Morale tests as normal).

Morale test is a example here but...

If the unit has to fall back, it will return to normal immediately.

falling back is not an example in this sentance, its a condition. so no, they will only return to normal when falling back.

Unless it's just a continutation of the "for example" in the previous sentence, spelling out (using fallback as the example) exactly how reacting to enemy actions would work. (You can do that you know, have two sentences addressing the same subject matter. ) If so, then ANY reaction to enemy actions would have that last bit , the "return to normal" attached to it. Least, that's the way I'm reading it, that the fallback example is just that, an example, not a condition.