Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Commander rule clarification
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15372		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  GR00V3R [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:29 am ]
Post subject:  Commander rule clarification
Just looking to clarify something about the Commnder special rule.

The rules state that, when defending, a character with the Commander special rule can declare formations that are within 5cm of each other to be intermingled, but the rules do not specify whether or not it must be the Commander's formation that is engaged.

For example, if you have two Tactical formations that have units within 5cm of each other, one led by a Captain and the other led by a Chaplain, if the Chaplain-led formation was charged, could the Captain be used to declare the two formations as being intermingled?

By my reading of the rules, this would be acceptable, but I haven't yet needed it in a game, so I'm really just seeking to clarify the principle.  :))
Author:  Chroma [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:31 am ]
Post subject:  Commander rule clarification
Quote: (GR00V3R @ 21 Apr. 2009, 02:29 )

The rules state that, when defending, a character with the Commander special rule can declare formations that are within 5cm of each other to be intermingled, but the rules do not specify whether or not it must be the Commander's formation that is engaged.

The "commander on the defense" rule didn't make it into the EPIC 2008 Errata, so it should probably not be used as it hasn't really been playtested much at all.
Author:  GR00V3R [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:35 am ]
Post subject:  Commander rule clarification
Meaning this was something discussed in the run-up to the 2008 errata being finalised? Was there a consensus opinion?

I would rather play it as allowed, largely because it makes sense and plays "fluffy" to my mind (although I must admit to significant bias given that I play as Marines).  :))
Author:  Chroma [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:39 am ]
Post subject:  Commander rule clarification
Quote: (GR00V3R @ 21 Apr. 2009, 02:35 )

Meaning this was something discussed in the run-up to the 2008 errata being finalised? Was there a consensus opinion?

Um... all the proposed changes/additions were sent to Jervis and he decided and put the "official" stamp on the ones he found acceptable.

The "Markconz Handbook", which is probably what you're reading from, was never official; it was a "compilation" of suggested rules changes, some not playtested at all, but merely theory.

The "official" rules, that is, the core rulebook plus the 2008 Errata on the GW website, don't have the "defending commander" rule in them... using that would be a house rule you'd need to discuss with your group.  Hence, there's no "official" answer to your question.  I'm not even sure where the "defending commander" idea first originated.  Since it hasn't been tested that much, I'm not sure how balanced it is or how it's supposed to work!
Author:  GR00V3R [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am ]
Post subject:  Commander rule clarification
Ah! I'm with you. My mistake. I was indeed referencing the E:A Handbook 2008.

I hadn't noticed that rule as being blue text. I'll look closer next time I'm reading it.

Thanks for clarifying.  :))
Author:  mattthemuppet [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:17 am ]
Post subject:  Commander rule clarification
ha ha HA! I have a cunning plan now :)
Author:  GR00V3R [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:33 am ]
Post subject:  Commander rule clarification
You'll note that the Handbook 2008 discussed is the ruleset we're using, buddy-boy...that means the "commander defender" rule is IN.  :))

Looking forward to continuing our game tonight, man--should be good to rock from 9pm!
Author:  mattthemuppet [ Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:35 am ]
Post subject:  Commander rule clarification
ah, bugger  :sulk:

game on from 9. I'm going to try and deoderise my cast, I half expect a cloud of flies to be following me, the amount it smells!
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/