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.

Mike1975 wrote:
Note: The attacks from units that attack while in Close Formation count as a single attack and require the expenditure of only a single Command Point and only one Dodge roll is made for all of the attacks made in this manner. If a Squadron is split into 2 or more groups that are in Close Formation with each other, each group is counted as a single attack.

I don't think that is correct. I can't find any rules that back it up. Here's my analysis:

Mecha in close formation make ranged attacks normally except "they go through all the steps of attacking together, rather than individually" P 18.

What does it mean to "attack together, rather than individually"?

The ranged attack steps are:

(1) choose weapon system(s)
(2) choose target mecha per weapon system
(3) roll to strike (D6+GN v. target DF)
(4) target may attempt to Dodge
(5) target may Roll with Impact
(6) target takes damage

A = Spartan
B = Defender
X, Y, and Z = Regults

The three Regults are in close formation. A and B are both in range of all of the Regults' weapon systems and the Regults have LOS to A and B.

(1) The Zentraedi player chooses the Regults' particle cannons and to spend CP to also choose their auto-cannons. The Zentraedi player must spends one CP per Regult or none and forgo choosing another weapon system. He may not spend one CP to choose an extra weapon system for only one of the Regults.

(2) The Zentraedi player must choose one target that all of the Regults fire at per weapons system. X and Y cannot, for example, shoot their particle cannons at A while Z shoots its particle cannon at B. Let's say the Regults shoot A with their particle cannons and B with their auto-cannons.

(3) The Zentraedi player rolls a D6 per weapon system fired per Regult -- in this case, three dice against A and three dice against B. Each roll is a potential strike. The Regults get +1 on each roll in addition to adding their GN score because they are in close formation (and have GN less than the total number of mecha in close formation).

(4) "When a mecha is struck by a ranged attack, it may attempt to Dodge that strike" P 16 (emphasis added).The UEDF player may spend a CP to attempt to Dodge each strike on A and B (so up to three CP for up to three strikes on each).

(5) The UEDF player may spend a CP to have a mecha that was struck roll with the impact.

(6) A and B take damage, if any.

It's correct, I spoke to Tom about it to make sure I was doing things right. Attacks in Close formation have the advantage of likely getting a Gunnery Bonus due to the sheer volume of coordinated fire plus units can shield each other for free.

The downside is that they all shoot as one. So if you have a VF-1J hiding behind a VF-1A they have to take out the VF-1A first and shoot as a group. So 2 groups of 3 Regults firing on some Veritechs. You fire one group as a single simultaneous attack rolling one attack roll for each Battlepod and the defender only has to spend one command point and makes one dodge roll for those three attacks. In this case let's say the VF-1A survives. Now the other group gets to fire. If both groups of 3 fire on the same veritech then that veritech will have to spend one command point for each group in close formation to attempt to dodge the attacks. If the first group had killed the VF-1A the second group could fire with the gunnery bonus and all on the VF-1J and hope to kill or maim it.

On the other hand IF they are not in close formation each unit can fire in any order you desire so you can fire the first few one by one until you kill the VF-1A and then fire the remaining at the VF-1J but none of the units will get the gunnery bonus or be able to shield each other when shot in return.

Same thing if you are fighting a bunch of Regults and a Officer's Pod and you want to take out the Officer so he cannot respawn units and the player will not get his command points next turn. Instead of keeping all your Veritechs together it's best to split a squadron into 2 parts so that the first half can fire and take out the "Pod Shield" that is in front of the Glaug and the other half can take out the Officer.

Like I said it is not well explained in the rules but it does make sense as you have some tradeoffs to organizing your troops into a large formation or multiple smaller ones or just spreading them out. Each has implications and advantages to the overall strategy.

Hope that makes sense.

Can you point to anything RAW to indicate that? I mean, it's not just that it isn't clear but I would honestly never know to only spend 1 CP to attempt 1 Dodge against three, seven, twelve, etc. attacks. That's just nowhere in the rules at all. In fact, the rules actually say something completely different than that, as I demonstrated above.

Mike I am not seeing it either.

Who is Tom? Is he the rules guy?

It is a massive disadvantage to being in close formation -- so much so that I don't think the +1 and potential shielding make up for it.

For the UEDF Close Formation is not a huge advantage. The Shield part is the most important part for the UEDF or keeping basic troops in from of the Commanders. Keeping UEDF and Zentraedi Commanders alive is the key. You won't get the +1 most of the time but for Battlepods it is a must to get a +1 to their meer 1 GUN.

The +1 hardly matters considering the target can roll one Dodge against any number of incoming attacks from one type of weapon system fired by a group of mecha in close formation.

This severely hinders Regults, which depend on massing fire under the theory that an enemy is very unlikely to dodge an entire barrage. Under the interpretation you and Tom (who is Tom again?) have, an enemy mecha can in fact pretty easily dodge an entire barrage.

No the +1 does matter a great deal since the dodge rolls are opposed. Units with higher gunnery are harder to dodge.....



Automatically Appended Next Post:
So if you have 4 regults attacking a Veritech, one rolls a 4, the other a 3, another a 2 and the last one a 5. The you add 1 GUN and +1 for Close Formation, the results are 4, 5, 6, 7. If the VT is in Fighter mode he has a DF of 6 and the 4 and 5 are misses. The VT they are shooting at rolls to dodge and rolls a 4 and has a PIL of 2. So the total is a 6. The Veritech dodges the roll of a 6 and is still hit by results of a 7. Without the GN bonus the VT would have dodged all the attacks.

If the VT had not dodged he would be hit twice, without close formation he would have only been hit once.

So close formation makes a big difference.

Let's say I have six Regults in close formation firing on a single VF-1A in Fighter mode.

Assuming no other bonuses, I need to roll 4+. Even if I get lucky and roll six 4s, the UEDF player can avoid ALL damage by simply spending one CP and rolling one 3+.

Now if those six Regults are not in close formation and they all shoot at the VF-1A Fighter, I need 5+. If I rolled six 5s then the UEDF player would have to (a) spend 6 CP and (b) roll 3+ six times to avoid all damage.

Your interpretation of close formation basically hobbles Regults on the attack.

 Manchu wrote:
Let's say I have six Regults in close formation firing on a single VF-1A in Fighter mode.

Assuming no other bonuses, I need to roll 4+. Even if I get lucky and roll six 4s, the UEDF player can avoid ALL damage by simply spending one CP and rolling one 3+.

Now if those six Regults are not in close formation and they all shoot at the VF-IJ Fighter, I need 5+. If I rolled six 5s then the UEDF player would have to (a) spend 6 CP and (b) roll 3+ six times to avoid all damage.

Your interpretation of close formation basically hobbles Regults on the attack.

NO, if the 6 Regults rolled 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6 the adjusted totals with GUN and Close Formation would be 4, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7. That's 4 hits. The 6, 6, 7, 7

If the Fighter dodged and rolls a 4 and adds his PIL of 2 he gets a 6. He would still be hit twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now if he rolls a "Natural" 6 he dodges everything regardless of the enemy total.

In my example, the Regults in close formation rolled:

4 4 4 4 4 4

They add +1 for their GN and +1 for being in close formation. The VF-1A Fighter DF is 6. Thanks to being in close formation, all the Regults hit.

Now the VF-1A has been struck six times. But under your interpretation, it can avoid ALL DAMAGE by spending 1 CP and rolling 3+ on one die.

By contrast, let's say my six Regults are not in close formation. They roll:

3 4 4 4 5 5

That means only two hits on the VF-1A Fighter. But the UEDF player must spend 2 CP and roll 3+ twice to avoid all damage.

Your interpretation of Dodge means I am likely to do more damage even though I am hitting less often.

The Veritech has a PIL if 2 and not 3 so he'd need a 4+ not a 3+, but essentially the first example is yes, he's spend only one Command Point.

In the second example the Veritech would ALSO need a 4+ since you add the GUN to the attack results so the Regults would have in effect rolled 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6. If the Veritech is hit twice he would need to spend 2 Command Points and make 2 rolls where he'd need a 4+, again not a 3+ to avoid the damage on each roll.

Don't forget the rolls are opposed with the results AFTER applying bonuses and not just on the base die. /

So a VF-1J with a higher Piloting has a better chance of Dodging and Hitting his target with a PIL of 3 and a GUN of 3 in Fighter mode. A VF-1S is even harder to kill with a PIL of 4 and a GUN of 3 in Fighter mode. If the VF-1S was in Battloid he would have a PIL of 4 AND a GUN of 4 making his shots pretty hard to dodge. He'd still be hit on a modified 5+ since his DF is a 5 in Battloid but he'd have a much better chance of Dodging.

EDIT: The VF-1A needs a 4+ to Dodge, my mistake. (I accidentally read the VF-1J entry.) But that doesn't alter my argument.

Reviewing the close formation and dodge rules reaps the same results. The normal rules for attacking apply. Attacks are made simultaneously using the normal rules in RAW.

Dodge has no additional information to add.

Mike I would suggest they add another example in the errata on how close formation attacks are dodged for clarity. That said I believe the way the book has it written is correct and having a single dodge for what could be a huge volley of fire is highly unbalanced.

Mike1975 wrote:
Don't forget the rolls are opposed with the results AFTER applying bonuses and not just on the base die.

I didn't.

 Swabby wrote:
having a single dodge for what could be a huge volley of fire is highly unbalanced

Emphatically agree.

I think the single dodge offsets the bonus of CF. It's not a good idea to put an entire squadron in Close Formation anyways as the simultaneous attack can have some serious drawbacks when trying to kill a command unit hiding behind his forces.

As written the rules could go either way depending on interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also missile volleys are essentially dodged in the same manner.

Mike1975 wrote:
I think the single dodge offsets the bonus of CF.

The disadvantage of close formation is the mecha in the group not being able to choose multiple targets in Step 2 when the group of mecha fires a certain weapons system.

Mike1975 wrote:
As written the rules could go either way depending on interpretation.

Can you post an argument from RAW that all attacks in close formation count as a single attack for the purpose of Dodge? So far, your argument is that you confirmed with Tom (who?) that it works like that.

 Manchu wrote:

Mike1975 wrote:
I think the single dodge offsets the bonus of CF.

The disadvantage of close formation is the mecha in the group not being able to choose multiple targets in Step 2 when the group of mecha fires a certain weapons system.

Mike1975 wrote:
As written the rules could go either way depending on interpretation.

Can you post an argument from RAW that all attacks in close formation count as a single attack for the purpose of Dodge? So far, your argument is that you confirmed with Tom (who?) that it works like that.

Where does it say they have to attack the same target? It is implied though, but not specified. I argued both points. Like I said, the rules are not well written when it comes to close formation you have much that is implied and not all of it is in the same spot.

Mike the volley special ability specifically mentions that. The close formation rule specifically says that attacks are made as normal.

If that was their intent they need to change the wording and clarify RAW because as of now the dodge roll should be made against all hits seperately.

That said I think it is a terrible idea to allow one dodge vs multiple attacks like this. Character tanking will be insanely powerful if this rule plays out the way you believe they intend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu I also do not see where it stafes they have to attack the same target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike, who is Tom?

 Swabby wrote:
Mike the volley special ability specifically mentions that. The close formation rule specifically says that attacks are made as normal.

If that was their intent they need to change the wording and clarify RAW because as of now the dodge roll should be made against all hits seperately.

That said I think it is a terrible idea to allow one dodge vs multiple attacks like this. Character tanking will be insanely powerful if this rule plays out the way you believe they intend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu I also do not see where it stafes they have to attack the same target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike, who is Tom?

Tom Roache the Playtest coordinator

Volley refers to weapons systems with the Volley trait --> missies --> not to Close Formation.

Also I do see that I misread Volley, it looks like its all or nothing, you dodge them all or you don't dodge any that do hit. Not sure if I like that but I can understand why that rules is the way it is.

Personally, I don't see anything in the rules that would indicate that one Dodge roll is made. All mecha firing in Close Formation take all the steps together, certainly, but at no point does it say any rolls or attacks are combined. Each shot would need to be Dodged.

If the intent was to make one Dodge roll against all attacks from Close Formation, then I wouldn't argue that there needs to be "clarification", I would argue that the rule needs to be explicitly added, as it's just not there and there's no implication anywhere that it exists. It's just brand new.

And as previously mentioned it specifically states attacks are made as normal.

Yeah unless they release an official Errata for Close Formation there's really no evidence that there's one Dodge roll, so I'll play RAW for that.

Mike1975 wrote:
Where does it say they have to attack the same target?

 Swabby wrote:
Manchu I also do not see where it stafes they have to attack the same target.

The text does not explicitly state all mecha in close formation must attack the same target. But it does say they go "through all of the steps of attacking together." Step 1 is choose a weapons system. So all the mecha in close formation choose the same weapon system. Step 2 is choose a target for that weapons system. So all the mecha in close formation choose the same target for that weapon system. If you choose to attack with different weapons systems or make attacks against different targets (with the same weapons system), this is just attacking individually.

 judgedoug wrote:
If the intent was to make one Dodge roll against all attacks from Close Formation, then I wouldn't argue that there needs to be "clarification", I would argue that the rule needs to be explicitly added, as it's just not there and there's no implication anywhere that it exists. It's just brand new.

Yes, that would be a clear example of re-writing rather than clarifying.

I texted him again. We could have had a miscommunication. I started playing it with one dodge roll and one CP PER individual attack.

Still don't like the idea of all or nothing for missiles. If I can get hit by 3 and my roll is enough to dodge 2 hits but not the third, why should I still get hit with all 3?

Mike1975 wrote:
I texted him again. We could have had a miscommunication. I started playing it with one dodge roll and one CP PER individual attack.

Still don't like the idea of all or nothing for missiles. If I can get hit by 3 and my roll is enough to dodge 2 hits but not the third, why should I still get hit with all 3?

I suppose the guidance on one missile was enough to impact and cause the others to impact or at least explode near enough to also damage, regardless of how well you were jinking.

I call shenanigans on our entire argument on hth and engagement rules. The Glaug-Eldare has the aircraft special rule and also the following hth attacks:

Body block, punch, power punch.

Notice the lack of stomp/kick/jump kick (which the vanilla glaug has)

Aircraft can attack in hth, so mecha can attack aircraft in hand to hand. RAW.

Well that's my original argument: that Engagement was a state that existed to limit weapons systems and restrict movement, and was not necessary to actually fight in H2H:

me 3 days ago wrote:
Hmm, I'm not seeing what you're seeing. In fact that rules specifically state the following:

"To make a hand to hand attack, an attacking mecha only needs to move into base to base contact with the enemy mecha that it wishes to attack (during the Movement Step, pg 15), then roll to Strike as normal." That is the rule as written on attacking in hand to hand combat.

The Engaged in Hand to Hand Combat section and effect is ancillary to moving INTO base to base contact but is not explicitly stated that it is required to be engaged to perform a Strike. In fact that above quote specifically says that the quote "only" unquote thing a mecha needs to do is to move into base to base contact. Being Engaged is a state that now exists for the mecha and it's enemy but is not required to initiate a Strike.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually did our discussion of Engagement exclude Aircraft H2H attacks? I thought Mike said that was the intent but we couldn't find RAW evidence to support it.

Well, now we have more of an argument for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you subscribe that engagement is a requirement to make a hth then yes, aircraft cannot make hth attacks.

I do not believe that engagement is a requirement to make the attack.

Didn't think of that, you got a point there. I think it as just an attempt to make the Glaug-Eldare move like an Aircraft when they named it as such. Can't really see if doing HTH attacks either TBH