Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
Charge engagement & orders loss clarifications http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=15221 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | scream [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:26 am ] |
Post subject: | Charge engagement & orders loss clarifications |
Hi, On epic_fr, we have some questions about the way orders are lost when a stand/unit is engaged in Close Combat: Page 16 from NE Gold rule book 3) Charge Orders These units sacrifice firepower for speed and the ability to engage the enemy. Units on Charge Orders may move up to double their normal movement allowance in the Movement Phase, but may not make any sort of ranged attacks. Units that are pinned in Close Combat are automatically assumed to be on Charge Orders, but units that are in Close Combat but not pinned (such as a tank fighting infantry) must be given orders normally. Page 30 from NE Gold rule Book: 3) Advance Fire Segment: Players alternate activating the rest of their units. Their only option is to make their normal ranged attacks, as everything else has been resolved. Units that were not given orders may be activated to fire now. If a model was charged and fought in Close Combat, it may not fire (however if other models in the same detachment were not engaged, they may fire). A first sight, it looks quite contradictory. From page 16, should we read: If a band of 20 ork boys with an advance order is engaged by a single rhino, it's quite abusive if it loses its advance order and is not able to fire in the advance order. Could others stands from the detachement do their advance movement or do they lose their movement but can fire in the advance fire phase ? Thanks for your help  ![]() |
Author: | Warhead [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:23 am ] |
Post subject: | Charge engagement & orders loss clarifications |
We always took Units to mean a Stand or model... but there have been that many re-writes it's hard to keep track of what the original meaning was. (I think the original books always called stands/models units, but I have been known to be wrong... no, really it does happen. Our lot play it that if a STAND/UNIT in a formation is pinned it must fight close combat and may not fire while the rest of the formation are given orders as normal... they may not leave formation of the pinned stand but may engage units in close combat if they have charge orders. Unpinned STAND/UNITS may be given orders and act as normal, since they are unpinned. Anything else is open to abuse (as you have shown scream) and doesn't work... IMO. |
Author: | scream [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Charge engagement & orders loss clarifications |
I agree with you Warhead but sometimes, "unit" refers to detachement and sometimes to a stand or a model so it's not always easy to understand. If Zap or Primarch or any other person involved in original netepic rule creation could confirm, it would be great ![]() |
Author: | sanjuro [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:26 pm ] |
Post subject: | Charge engagement & orders loss clarifications |
Huh? Is Netepic Gold already available?  ![]() cheers sanjuro |
Author: | scream [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:29 pm ] |
Post subject: | Charge engagement & orders loss clarifications |
Quote: (sanjuro @ 24 Mar. 2009, 13:26 ) Is Netepic Gold already available?  ![]() Not yet, I use a beta version ![]() |
Author: | zap123 [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Charge engagement & orders loss clarifications |
Yes, the use of Unit and Stand is a bit loose at times. Typically, you can interpret unit & stand as the same thing, a single vehicle+ or infantry stand. Stand isn't the perfect word as you get the idiots who then say "it says stand, so it only applies to infantry". ![]() Where the whole formation is affected the word Detachment should be used. P16 clearly means each individual "thing", not the whole detachment. |
Author: | Warhead [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:31 pm ] |
Post subject: | Charge engagement & orders loss clarifications |
I wish to pass the motion that Zap should change his Avatar to this... ![]() ...for truly he is Stupendous!.. Cheers, Zap... ![]() |
Author: | primarch [ Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:31 pm ] |
Post subject: | Charge engagement & orders loss clarifications |
Hi! Zap is correct. It's a real pain to catch and change all the unit/stand/model uses for single models. Primarch |
Author: | zap123 [ Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Charge engagement & orders loss clarifications |
Avatar changed as requested. Perhaps I should add a Glossary of Common terms to the proposed Core Rules errata? |
Author: | Warhead [ Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:36 am ] |
Post subject: | Charge engagement & orders loss clarifications |
Haha, cheers, Zap. ![]() |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |