Hena ~ it's the odd results and situations that is the bread and butter for rule... lawyers.
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Assault　(?) http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=14413 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | konate [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
1.  Can extra CC hits be allocated to units in the enemy formation beyond btb contact? 2.  Can units in btb contact have FF hits allocated to them? 3.  The extra attacks that are specific to "Small Arms" cannot be used if in btb (thus    also the MW ability of Wraithguard), correct ? 4.  The extra attacks that are specific to "Assault Weapons" can only be used if in btb    contact (thus also the MW ability of Terminators), correct? 5.  Support CANNOT be lent to an assault until AFTER the formations in the assault have      resolved their attacks AND either the attacker or defender has not been wiped out,    correct?   謠|
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
1. Yes. Once you've determined total number of hits they are just hits. They are not "CC" or "FF" hits. (War Engines have an exception to this.) 2. Yes. See above - no distinguishable FF hits. In fact, since units in base contact are closer than those not in base contact (obviously) they must be allocated hits first. 3. Correct. If you would normally use FF value, Small Arms abilities apply. 4. Correct. If you would normally use CC value, Assault Weapon abilities apply. 5. Correct. |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
Briefly, 1) As a general principle, all assault hits (CC anf FF) are pooled together and then allocated front to back against enemy units. There is no distinction between CC and FF, except in the case of WE (see below) 2) As 1), there is no distinction between CC and FF hits 3) You are correct. You need to be carefull to observe the distinction between "Weapon" notes and "Unit" notes. Weapon notes apply to the specified weapon, while unit notes apply to all weapons and attacks 4) Again correct 5) Correct. This is part of the 2008 errata which essentially splits the assault into two parts, and you resolve the core assault before considering whether support is applicable or not. (But don't forget that BMs get added to nearby formations capable of supporting even if they did not actually do anything) ================== Drat, Neal got there first again - so as he says |
|
| Author: | konate [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
What happens to a broken unit that is assaulted? |
|
| Author: | Mephiston [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
It fights as normal. Gets one blast marker for every unit left after all attacks are resolved and is destroyed if they lose. Broken formation can't support an engagement. |
|
| Author: | konate [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
Quote: (Mephiston @ 31 Dec. 2008, 22:36 ) Broken formation can't support an engagement. I don't understand? Also, if they all get blast markers, aren't they just considered broken (again)? That is, I suppose, unless they are Marines...that could be a (dangerous) way to regroup them. |
|
| Author: | Mephiston [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
Sorry I'll clear up the blast markers. The broken formation counts as having as many blast markers as units when working out the modifier for the roll off. So in a assault between two formations were the attacking formation has 1 blast marker and the defending formation is broken with 4 units left the attacking formation would get +1 to the roll for having less blast markers. The formation will remain broken even if they win and if they lost they are wiped out automatically. |
|
| Author: | konate [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
That makes a lot of sense, actually. Is this in the book somewhere, or in the 2008 Epic Armageddon Handbook? |
|
| Author: | Mephiston [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
It's in the book. The bit about units and blast markers is in the assault resolution modifier table on page 26 and the auto destroyed is in 1.12.8 Loser Withdraws on page 27. |
|
| Author: | Tiny-Tim [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
I think that people need to check their rule books. If a Broken formation wins an engagement then it doesn't take any additional BM, so doesn't loose additional units. (Page 27 - 1.12.7 last sentence of first paragraph). |
|
| Author: | Mephiston [ Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
The last paragraph of 1.13.4 states Remember that a broken formation that wins an assault does not receive any Blast markers for the casualties it suffered, and will not therefore lose any additional units due to panic. It is assumed that in this case, the feeling of triumph at winning the assault overcomes any feelings of terror or fear. So if a broken formation wins the assault no further casualties are taken. |
|
| Author: | Erik M [ Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Assault　(?) |
Hena ~ it's the odd results and situations that is the bread and butter for rule... lawyers.
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|