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) 2014/02/21 20:05:52
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader
Eindhoven, Netherlands
|
Hey everyone,
I just thought of something which would be really useful when fighting an opponent who has brought a lot of fortifications. However, there most likely is some flaw in my reasoning, and I hope you can spot it:
In this case, it does not matter whether the building in question is a fortification bought by your opponent or a 'neutral' building placed as terrain. The theory is as follows: the building is empty. It doesn't matter how, but there are no enemy troops whatsoever inside. In your movement phase, instead of entering the building, you move into base contact with the building. Since it's just a piece of terrain, the rules don't forbid you to do so.
If your opponent now would move a squad inside, they would be considered in base contact with your squad touching the building, and thus in combat. However, it isn't permitted to move into combat. On the other hand, your opponent is also restricted from charging you by entering the building, as it counts as embarking, and you may not embark into combat either.
Likewise, if there were any models within 1" of the building, your opponent would be forbidden from moving inside, as he then would move to within 1" of an enemy unit.
This way, your opponent will be forced to move around the building and kill all the models within 1" of the building, before he can enter the building again. This will likely mean he has to move outside some defensive perimeter, and thus be exposed to a round of enemy shooting.
Is this stategy correct rulewise (not that I intend to use it as it sounds terribly rule-lawyerish, but I just want to know), or is there something wrong with the reasoning?
|
1400 points of EW/MW Italians (FoW)
2200 points of SoB and Inquisition (40K)
1000 points of orks (40K)
Just starting out with Ultramarines (30K)
Four 1000-2500 point forces for WHFB (RIP)
One orc team (Blood Bowl) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/21 21:12:57
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Repentia Mistress
|
Hi fellow SoB player!
From what I can see I believe it'll work. To occupy a building his whole unit must be within 2 inches of the doorway. If your unit is placed such that there is no space, he would be unable to enter.
I just feel that to keep a unit there to block him may be a waste. How about letting him enter and then shoot a few meltas and let the building collapse and he will take wounds if it does?
Also, if you surround the building before you blow it up, it'll work like surrounding a transport and blowing it up. Since he is unable to disembark, he will perish with the building.
Being a SoB player I'm sure you would have some meltas to accomplish that! It's the holy trinity after all!
|
DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+
Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/21 21:19:55
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader
Eindhoven, Netherlands
|
milkboy wrote:From what I can see I believe it'll work. To occupy a building his whole unit must be within 2 inches of the doorway. If your unit is placed such that there is no space, he would be unable to enter.
What I'm trying to do is not block the access point, but to forbid him from entering the building while standing on the other side of the building. When a unit enters a building (or a vehicle, for that matter), they take on the 'footprint' of said building/vehicle. Thus, with models standing within 1" of the building, the opponent would be unable to move models into the building as this is considered moving within 1" of an enemy unit. With vehicles this isn't a problem, as you may not move within 1" of an enemy vehicle, but no such rule exists for buildings that I'm aware of.
...still, I agree, it's not a really effective tactic  The only way it would work is if the enemy has a building with a lot of emplaced weapons, and without models inside these would be forced to sentry fire or can't shoot at all.
|
1400 points of EW/MW Italians (FoW)
2200 points of SoB and Inquisition (40K)
1000 points of orks (40K)
Just starting out with Ultramarines (30K)
Four 1000-2500 point forces for WHFB (RIP)
One orc team (Blood Bowl) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/21 21:41:41
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought
|
I would say at the time of the player's movement into the building he was not within 1" of an enemy model.
On your turn, you would be obligated to not be within 1" of an enemy model on your movement phase.
Will have to look at RAW. Cool premise.
|
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/21 22:16:52
Subject: Re:Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Would you not allow someone to embark on their wave serpent if you had models that charged it in the front?
As far as I know, if you're not blocking the access point(completely or within an 1") then you can't stop them from embarking.
Caboose
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/21 22:21:15
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Couple flaws:
1st: you only have to occupy the 2" embarkation point to prevent entrance.
2nd: If it is empty, why not just claim it your self?
3rd: if stronghold is in use, if it is a claimed building with weapons, your going to eat a lot defensive fire.
4th: Beign in base contact with the building would not put you in assault with a unit in the building, but you could assault the building if it was claimed and Stronghold was in effect.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/21 23:45:27
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader
Eindhoven, Netherlands
|
barnowl wrote:2nd: If it is empty, why not just claim it your self?
3rd: if stronghold is in use, if it is a claimed building with weapons, your going to eat a lot defensive fire.
For example, take a look at this thing:
If my theory were to be true, you could place a single model or small squad in the place where the main building and bunker annex meet. First of all, there's absolutely no way that cannon is going to swivel all the way down. Secondly, it would mean no units could enter either building, rendering a 535+pts fortification virtually useless, as the weapon is fired from the building, not the battlements. Also, it would force the player to move out of his Wall of Martyrs to get LOS to the model/squad standing there.
Simply put, it would mean: 1) The building doesn't shoot for a turn
2) The building doesn't shoot for another turn if the squad survives
3) Models can't get protection from the bunkers for at least one turn
4) At least one squad would have to move outside their defensive perimeter to shoot the model/unit, leaving it dreadfully exposed to shooting/assaults
Say, you were to occupy it instead. You would first have to move over or past it (which would be equal to suicide as it means crossing a Wall of Martyrs which is probably lined with troops), and even then the enemy would just assault you in the next assault phase.
Remember, I'm only talking about a theoretical possibility here, not an actual strategy I intend to use.
|
1400 points of EW/MW Italians (FoW)
2200 points of SoB and Inquisition (40K)
1000 points of orks (40K)
Just starting out with Ultramarines (30K)
Four 1000-2500 point forces for WHFB (RIP)
One orc team (Blood Bowl) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/22 00:30:56
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Hacking Interventor
|
There isn't a rule that I can find that says you can't be within 1" of a enemy building.
I can't see this working as enemy units embarking a building are not in combat with a unit in base contact with the building, only the building itself can be charged from outside.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/22 00:37:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/22 00:43:51
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Vehicles are allowed to be within 1", provided they don't move. Since for the purposes of assault and shooting, occupied buildings are treated as vehicles, and can't move, I can't see anything that would stop him.
Adding in, this also meams that provided you still have models in b2b with the building in his assault phase, you get free CC attacks against it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/22 00:53:55
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/22 01:40:51
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
No, your theory would not work. You being in btb with building will have no effect on the models embarking or disembarking unless you are blocking their access points.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/22 04:29:46
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
I will throw my agreement behind those saying it would not work. Embarking into a building, or a vehicle for that matter, is done by evoking the rules known by the same name and not by simply moving the models into some new location. As it is evoking a Special Rule it only needs to obey any specific restrictions on that situation and any requirements found within it's own body. In this particular case permission to embark has been granted by completing X, so a specific restriction is required in order to deny that permission. This is where the Opening Poster encounters a problem, it will be very difficult to prove that page 10 is a specific restriction on all situations involving embarking. Personally I would question it on multiple fronts, but these three in particular: Page 10 is a basic rule - Page 7 contains a clause which states that more advanced rules exist further in the book and the basic rules between pages 10 and 31 will be over-written quite easily. Page 10 is found in the section detailing the Movement Phase and is dedicated towards basic movement - Embarking itself is not movement and quite a few problems occur if embarking becomes movement. The measurement would be to the building itself and not the unit inside, as that has been removed from the table under the embarking rules - A building which is an immobile entity that is incapable of moving to begin with. I wouldn't be too discouraged though, it is only the second situation where it is possible for an friendly unit to suddenly pop into existence within 1 inch of an enemy.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/02/22 17:43:05
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/22 06:53:18
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation
Perth, Western Australia
|
You're right. There is no rule that prevents a unit from embarking a vehicle that is within 1" Of an enemy (and buildings are entered in the same way as a vehicle is.)
As a side note, if what the OP suggested was possible, it would mean that it would be impossible to Tank Shock with a full Transport.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/22 06:58:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/22 17:48:53
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Dra'al Nacht, I'm quite fond of this Catch 22: Embarking Rules state you embark by moving all models in a unit into X inches of an access point. Page 10 prevents a model from being moved more then once during this phase, and more then 6 inches maximum and a few other things that makes happy page 7 exists. If Embarking is Movement and restricted by page 10 then units can never embark as they must move to trigger the embarking restrictions!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/22 17:49:52
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/22 20:34:38
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Long-Range Land Speeder Pilot
|
worth pointing out that if your unit is still in base contact during his assault phase and he has embarked into the building then much like a vehicle that did not move out of base contact you could attack it now. (iirc)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/22 21:10:38
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
To add to that note:
Much like a vehicle that didn't move out of the way, one automatically hit it... grenades away!
|
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/22 23:42:44
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Hacking Interventor
|
JinxDragon wrote:Dra'al Nacht,
I'm quite fond of this Catch 22:
Embarking Rules state you embark by moving all models in a unit into X inches of an access point.
Page 10 prevents a model from being moved more then once during this phase, and more then 6 inches maximum and a few other things that makes happy page 7 exists.
If Embarking is Movement and restricted by page 10 then units can never embark as they must move to trigger the embarking restrictions!
That is not the way to read the rules. Units are told to move to the embarkation point so by moving X inches to the embarkation point they are fulfilling the rule's requirements.
Embarkation is part of a movement phase so you are not moving twice.
The only problem is if you move a unit then move something else then come back to the original unit.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/23 00:32:36
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Uptopdownunder: I believe you are mistaking what my intended for that post, there was a context in which it was posted that you appear to have overlooked. The post was in reply to situations that would occur if the embarking action triggered the restrictions against moving a model into 1 inch of an enemy model, something which requires embarking into a transport to be movement. The rules for embarking does require one to finish the movement action of a unit in order to proceed to the embarking section but this causes no problems in normal game play because embarking is not movement to trigger the restriction on moving a unit twice. Should embarking be movement, then this distinct separation between when these two actions take place would require one to carry out the illegal action of moving the unit twice to complete embarking. This makes it a good thing that embarking is just evoking a Special Rule and moving the unit off the table into a 'transported' status, does it not?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/23 00:38:54
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/23 00:42:01
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Hacking Interventor
|
Embarkation is part of a units movement there can be no debate on that surely ?
It's no different to moving into a ruin on the ground floor and then moving up a level, 2 parts but one move.
When embarking so long as no model is physically placed within 1" of an enemy unit, or would have to move within 1" on its way to the access point, there is no problem.
The notion of the chaps running inside and finding a seat at the front that might be within an inch of an enemy simply doesn't exist in the ruleset.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/23 01:10:19
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Uptopdownunder, Embarking is done during the movement phase, but so is a lot of other actions that are not themselves 'movement' as defined by the Rules. The concept that embarking is not itself movement is not unusual in the slightest and one that would prevent all sorts of broken situations from occurring, because a defined term is used to trigger events within other Special and Advanced Rules and situations, so must be taken with complete respect from a Rule as Written stand point. One of those broken situations is at the core of this very thread, Page 10 contains a lot of restriction that trigger on 'movement' and the inability to 'move' into 1 inch of an enemy model is a restriction being discussed. It is not alone in the matter of restrictions, the situation you where quoting was another restriction that also must come into play if Page 10 is to be honored, a restriction that prevents Embarking from being legally possible. Therefore I have to state that I clearly view embarking as nothing more then the evoking of a Special Rule to trigger a sequence of events that ends with the unit being 'transported' inside of another unit. I would need something that clearly states that Embarking is itself movement, and therefore bound by all restrictions on movement and other movement related situation Rules, before that view point is changed. The only mention of movement within the rules being discussed is a requirement that models complete a move within the distance of an Access Point. Even ignoring the fact this could be considered evidence that Embarking can not be movement, the Catch 22 I used, this is little evidence that this action is to be considered Movement. Timelines would require the movement to be completed before you can verify if every model is now in the x range of the access point. Now I do have to disprove that last sentence as I can envision a situation where the rules trigger in such a way that it is very much like the chaps are running inside and finding a front row seat: A unit moves to the access point, the last models move their last inch to make it within X This unit embarks, some models have now "moved" more then their max movement - One of these models is a blast master, it was even debatable that it made it to the X to begin with The building has firing points at the diagonal front of the building - 6 inches away from the access point used All shooting attacks are measured to these fire points - The blastmaster model has moved 14 inches in order to use this firing point This unit was the last to move, the first to fire: How does one not image that Blastmaster running all that distance to man the fire points, the rules clearly allow it. The Rules are Abstract and do not match the cinematographic image in many cases is all I am trying to explain, and I can envision a lot of situations that are unusual by the logical standpoint and completely legal by Rules as Written. Given how the flow if a single turn is mean to go, the way maximum movement is described, and a few other factors there is nothing wrong with the cinematography in this situation. The model, knowing it has to man a point that is secured of threats has no problem putting all effort into sprinting to the front of the building where he can throw the gun against the fire point and let hell loose a the enemy. I chose the Blastmaster in this example for the secondary assault profile and the fact a Noise Marine is just insane enough to push their body to a limit just to make more noise even faster.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/23 01:18:44
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/23 01:53:03
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Hacking Interventor
|
Seriously mate you are over thinking this and taking it places it is not meant to go.
Looking at disembarking
"but it must end its move wholly within 6" of the of the Access Point it disembarked from (we assume that any distance that is lost because of this has been used getting out of the Transport)."
Sounds like movement to me, it's accounting for having moved a bit in getting out.
I guess the notion of a unit moving extra to get to a fire point is along those lines as well, they move fast in buildings because it is clear an there are no enemies about.
Reconcile it how you like the fact remains that the positions of models within buildings and vehicles is abstracted to the point where the occupants are not considered to have proximity to enemy units, the notion that embarking/disembarking is not movement really has no bearing on things.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/23 01:59:36
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/23 02:38:47
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration
|
Brother Michael wrote: If your opponent now would move a squad inside, they would be considered in base contact with your squad touching the building, and thus in combat. lol wut? Having read this thread I am completely confused as to how you made that leap in logic. Let's look at this for a moment. If opponent unit A is inside the building and you get right next to it then you aren't in cc with unit A. If your unit assaults the building, they are hitting the building. The only way for your unit to assault the unit inside is if your unit can also go inside. There are rules allowing two opposing units to assault each other provided both are in separate and adjoining sections of a single building. However there are no rules allowing a unit that's outside to assault one that's inside. So, looking at your case where both units are outside and simply touching different parts of the building, well, they aren't in assault either. Likewise, if there were any models within 1" of the building, your opponent would be forbidden from moving inside, as he then would move to within 1" of an enemy unit.
Buildings are treated very differently than that. There is specific permission for enemy units to enter a building even if it's occupied in both the brb and sa rules. Of course, you can't move into the exact same section though. That said buildings are never "enemy units." They are buildings and have their own rules depending on if you are using the plain brb or sa books. Also, just being next to a building doesn't mean you take it over. Under SA rules you have to move inside AND there has to be no enemy units in it for you to take it over. Even then, enemies can absolutely stand right next to it and even enter. *** At the end of the day if you want to deny entry into the building to your opponent you need to do one of two things. Either stand in front of the door so the opponent can't move an entire unit within 2" of it or move your own unit inside and stay in the section with the door. Beyond that it's fair game.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/23 02:41:47
------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/23 17:06:02
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Uptopdownunder,
This is a Rule forum for discussing Rule as Written and how they function, are you really surprised that someone is going to be giving these Rules and their interactions deep thought?
The opening poster put forth a situation: that Embarking into a building would be illegal if an enemy is within 1 inch of the building.
This takes two rules interacting together: A restriction on moving and rules telling us how we measure to embarked units.
So what then is causing the assumption to be incorrect if Embarking is movement?
Also:
Disembarking is not movement, it is a sequence of steps
One just happens to be movement
|
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/23 22:27:14
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Hacking Interventor
|
Reading too much into the rules and coming up with concepts that simply don't exist is not deep thought, it's simply over reading.
The rules state quite clearly that models that disembark count as having moved so it really doesn't need to go any further than that, but I'm sure you will do so.
Certainly on my table if a unit starts the turn within 2" of an access point and embarks to either a building or vehicle, any heavy weapons they have will be firing snap shots in the shooting phase, as disembarkation is said to count as movement.
It doesn't matter whether embarking is movement or not the simple fact is that in the situation presented no model is placed or passes within an 1" of an enemy so it is a legal move.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/23 23:13:09
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Uptopdownunder,
Maybe I will try and put forth the Opening Posts argument once more and ask the simple question again.
Page 78 states that measurements to embarked units will involve measuring to the hill of the transport
Page 10 states a model can not move within 1 inch of an enemy model
The Opening Poster put forth that if a model embarks into a building they would have moved into 1 inch, by the Rules informing us how to measure these things.
I put forth Embarking is not movement and can not trigger a restriction worded for movement.
What do you put forth as to why this poster is not correct?
|
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/23 23:28:02
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Hacking Interventor
|
It looks to me that what you are saying is "because I believe they can embark, embarking must not be movement" that doesn't follow.
They can embark simply because the notion of the occupants of a transport being within 1" of an enemy simply isn't considered in the rules, as is evidenced by the fact that transports can be charged and tank transports can tank shock irrespective of what they are carrying.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/23 23:32:06
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
So your argument against the opening poster is:
It is legal to embark because the Rule wasn't designed for the situation and can be ignored?
|
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/02/23 23:55:11
Subject: Preventing your opponent from entering buildings; where is the flaw in my reasoning?
|
 |
Never Forget Isstvan!
|
Well for 1, the unit never does get within 1" of the other unit.
The embarkation point is clearly more than 1" away from the enemy unit. So nothing prevents embarkation.
Whether or not they are within 1" of an enemy unit after embarkation has nothing to do with it.
There is no restriction on moving a transport within 1" of an enemy unit just because they are carrying a unit that was already embarked. There is also no restriction on embarking onto a vehicle or building that is in b2b with an enemy unit.
|
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG |
|
 |
 |
|