Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forums

Search
Forums » Memoir '44 - English » Firefight Card
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
Scipio
Junior Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
July 2004
Firefight Card Wed, 14 July 2004 00:56
The Firefight card says:
Quote:

Issue an order to 4 units to open fire.
Units in a firefight may not be adjacent to an enemy unit...


Does that mean:
1. That they can't be given an order if they have adjacent enemies or:
2. That they cant fire in the firephase if they have enemy units adjacent?

The difference obviously is that if they can be given the order and another unit successfully gets the adjacent enemy unit to retreat the first unit is then free to fire.

I think that the first one is correct but the text isn't fully clear on this...?
      
jerrytel
Member

User Pages
Posts: 52
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Firefight Card Wed, 14 July 2004 02:03
I interpret this card as you are ordering up to 4 units, not adjacent to an enemy unit, to open fire and each get an additional die in the battle.

All orders need to be declared, and then all your units fire in turn. Remembering this, all your units fire, and then you determine retreats.

      
inquisitor
Member

Posts: 43
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Firefight Card Wed, 14 July 2004 04:30
It means as it states, you can issue an order to fire to 4 units (they can be in any section), but the units cannot be adjacent to an enemy unit and it may not move.

For doing this you also get to use an extra dice in your fire attack roll.

By your question it appears that you think that the tactic card is played in addition to the command cards, which is wrong. You play the firefight card in place of playing any other card. By playing this card, you are moving none of your units, you are staying in place and firing at the enemy as they close, but if they are upon you and ready for close assault, then you can not fire at them using this card. You could however use another card (in place of this card not both together), such as attack, probe, etc. to issue orders to your units that are adjacent and they could fire, move and whatever.

Hope this helps.

Quote:

Does that mean:
1. That they can't be given an order if they have adjacent enemies or:
2. That they cant fire in the firephase if they have enemy units adjacent?
      
BloodyBucket
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 193
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Firefight Card Wed, 14 July 2004 05:57
I think he was saying, "Can I issue a firefight card order to a unit adjacent to an enemy unit, in the hopes that another attack makes the adjacent enemy retreat, thus freeing up the ordered unit, previously but not now adjacent to an enemy, to engage a distant unit?" You could do that with just the firefight card.

Whew.

My guess would be no, for the sake of simplicity.
      
Scipio
Junior Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Firefight Card Wed, 14 July 2004 12:06
Quote:

I think he was saying, "Can I issue a firefight card order to a unit adjacent to an enemy unit, in the hopes that another attack makes the adjacent enemy retreat, thus freeing up the ordered unit, previously but not now adjacent to an enemy, to engage a distant unit?" You could do that with just the firefight card.


Yes Bloodybucket you are correct. My question wasn't as clear as I thought it was.

The main reason this is an issue is because the card says "Units in a firefight" instead of "Units ordered" and that (I think) could imply that it can be given an order regardless of adjacent-status but it can only "firefight" during the firephase if it's not adjacent of an enemy unit.

However we have ruled for playing that you can not for the time being, for the (as you said) sake of simplity.
      
Texas gamer
Member

Posts: 62
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Firefight Card Wed, 14 July 2004 15:01
You can't order that unit, which happens before firing, if you are not sure it will be able to fire.
      
inquisitor
Member

Posts: 43
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Firefight Card Thu, 15 July 2004 06:30
I don't understand why you would have to rule anything. Are you making a house rule that this means something else or are you playing it as was intended.

The card plainly says that you can issue an “ORDER” to 4 Units to open fire. These units are now in a firefight and get to roll an extra DICE, but they can not be adjacent to an enemy unit for them to be considered in the firefight, and they may not move.

Quote:

The main reason this is an issue is because the card says "Units in a firefight" instead of "Units ordered" and that (I think) could imply that it can be given an order regardless of adjacent-status but it can only "firefight" during the firephase if it's not adjacent of an enemy unit.


Sorry, I still don’t see how this can imply that they be given an order regardless of adjacent status as this is a condition of them being able to firefight. If they are adjacent, then they can’t firefight, therefore they can not be given this order.

Hope that this helps.
      
GI Joe
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 26
Registered:
November 2003
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 19 July 2004 04:57
Also, contrary to what Jerrytel said, you do NOT fire all your units and then determine retreats.

Each unit must have its battle completely resolved (including retreats, since that's part of battle resolution) before you move on to the next unit.

So it is entirely possible that you may have ordered 4 units to engage in the firefight, and then one or more of them end up not doing anything because previous hits or retreats caused their targets to be eliminated or out of range.

This is no different than issuing any other order; it's not unique to the firefight card.
      
jerrytel
Member

User Pages
Posts: 52
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 19 July 2004 05:16
My bad - I don't like that, but my bad...

So, this not pertaining to Firefight...

1. I get a card to order 4 units
2. I move my 4 units -
3. I pick one of the units I just ordered and decide to battle.
4. Resolve battle
5. Pick the next unit to battle, resolve battle, so on.

If that is how it should be played, it does not make much sense to me. Basically, you are attacking with 4 units, but the 1st battle could push the attacked unit out of range for the rest? Also, not much of a concentrated attack - not many battles that I know of consisted of one unit attacking at a time compared to an advance that consisted of multiple units hitting a enemy at the same time. Just my two cents.

But - if that is the way things should be - I will correct.

Jerry

Oh - not trying to be argumentative - just want to get the rules correct - but this is something that does not make sense to me.

[Updated on: Mon, 19 July 2004 05:24]

      
GI Joe
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 26
Registered:
November 2003
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 19 July 2004 05:47
Now that you mention it, it does make sense to want to have concentrated firepower like that.

But I'm sure you're supposed to go in order. From page 8 of the rules:

"Battles are checked and resolved sequentially, one ordered unit at a time, in the sequence of your choice. You must announce and resolve one unit's battle entirely before beginning the next one."

After you play a command card, you just state which units you are ordering.

After you know which are ordered, then you decide whether they should move. After all have moved, then you decide which will battle, in any sequence you want. You don't have to state who is shooting at what ahead of time.

So I guess you would select those farthest away to shoot first, so that if they force a retreat, you have a better chance of the target remaining in range for the remaining ordered units.

I imagine it was a choice, again for the sake of simplicity, of the designer to go for sequential rather than simultaneous battling.

If you are having more fun playing the other way, I guess you've just invented a new house rule. Smile

      
Texas gamer
Member

Posts: 62
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 19 July 2004 06:48
While it would be nice to imagine that all real-world attacks were perfectly timed and coordinated, they were not. The sequential firing of units helps simulate this (even though this is not a simulation, but a game). Sometimes you get lots of hits, other times misses, and sometimes an early retreat that really louses up the chances of later shots. It's very easy on any turn to conjecture a real-world SNAFU that could have caused the end result. I think the rules work well.
      
Ubergeek
Member

User Pages
Posts: 55
Registered:
April 2004
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 19 July 2004 08:17
This issue might be cleared up by thinking of the two types of cards in the game; Command and Tactics.

When playing a Command card, you are activating units in a section to move and/or fire. That's the basic function of the card.

When playing a Tactics card, you are activating a unit(s) to perform the special action on the card. Don't read more into the Tactic than what's there. If there's no movement allowed on the card, and it states that 4 units fire, then that's what they do. As long as the unit in question is activated and the conditions present themselves, the unit(s) can perform the action. Using "Firefight" as an example, you could activate a card adjacent to an enemy and not be able to fire with it immediately. As mentioned, say another non-adjacent unit attacks that enemy and forces them to retreat away from your adjacent unit. That activated unit that hasn't taken it's action yet can now fire on the now non-adjacent enemy since the conditions of the card are now met.

Just as you can activate a unit with a Command Card and not move or fire with it, you can activate a unit with a Tactics card and not do anything with it, including situations where you can't because it doens't meet the criteria on the card.

I think the only satisfaction we'll get here is when Richard Borg officially rules on what the intent is. But, I'll draw attention to another card that is similarly worded as Firefight. "ARMOR ASSAULT": Issue an order to 4 armor units. Units in Close Assault roll 1 additional die... I can still order 4 armor units and move and fire them. If they are in close assault situations at the end of the move, then they roll the extra die. Whereas the card "CLOSE ASSAULT" specifically states: Issue an order to all Infantry and/or Armor units adjacent to enemy units. Since battles are resolved separately the question arises whether a unit can still fire if an adjacent enemy unit is forced to retreat. I say that it can since it's not prohibited by the card, but it can't take ground or Overrun.

Without an official answer in a FAQ, I don't delve into what the "intent" of the card is. I play the card as it reads and apply the rest of the rules to the situation. In the case of Firefight, I would rule that you can activate any 4 units to open fire (it doesn't state infantry only). When it comes around to their turn to fire, they get the extra die and can fire so long as they're not adjacent to an enemy (even if they're adjacent to one but firing at another non-adjacent enemy unit).
      
GI Joe
Junior Member

User Pages
Posts: 26
Registered:
November 2003
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 19 July 2004 09:05
No, I think the Firefight card should be played differently, Ubergeek.

The Firefight card allows you to issue orders to 4 units to "open fire". If you look at the game turn sequence, declaring which units you order is done right after you play the card.

The card is meant to allow you only to order units into a firefight. You cannot order units with the Firefight card who are currently adjacent to any enemy unit, since the card's text specifically says that they cannot be in a firefight.

Next in the turn comes movement, but you cannot do this, either, since again the card's text says you can't.

So next you Battle. Naturally, you battle with the 4 units you chose to order into the Firefight. You battle them in any order you choose. Some of them may not get to battle, though, since there may be nothing to shoot at because another unit eliminated the enemy or forced them to retreat out of range.

Also note that I think you missed a rule, Ubergeek. There's a rule that says that if a unit is in close assault with the enemy, they MUST battle that enemy unit if they choose to battle. They CANNOT choose to shoot at a unit at range if there's one right next to them.

I think the Close Assault card works similarly.

The cards intend for you to give specific orders to units, and that condition must be prevailing at the time you select which units to order, or you cannot order them. The Close Assault's text is just a bit clearer on this point.

Still, I would say that, if you have a unit that is adjacent to the enemy and have issued it the order with this Close Assault card, then when the ordered unit's turn comes, if it remains adjacent to ANY enemy, then it may fire on it with the extra die. However, if an enemy that was originally adjacent to the unit has retreated already due to some other close assault of your units, and there are NO other units adjacent to it, then this unit is out of luck. It was issued a close assault order. For it to fire on an enemy at range is obviously not a close assault, and is contrary to its orders. So it does not get to battle.

The Armor Assault card is different. It permits you to select ANY 4 armor units. You are giving them normal orders to move and/or battle, it just gives you the special property that if any of them end up in close assault when it's time to battle, you get an extra die, even on an overrun attack (as per the FAQ). The Infantry Assault card works similarly, but it bestows extra movement, instead of extra firepower.

I don't claim to have a clairvoyant window into Mr. Borg's mind, however, so I would be interested to hear his official ruling, certainly.

[Updated on: Mon, 19 July 2004 18:53]

      
jerrytel
Member

User Pages
Posts: 52
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 19 July 2004 14:49
I think you explained it quite well...I guess I just read the rules and seeing that you are supposed do all your movement first, I just figured you are to also declare all your attacks as well. To go along with this, I was just playing that all the attacks are rolled using the map and enemies as they were at the time the attacks were ordered, and then resolve all the retreats.

I will definitely start playing the way the rules intended - thanks for the help.
      
Otto Funk
Member

Posts: 30
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 19 July 2004 21:46
GI Joe, I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head there.
I think we need to keep in mind that the two phrases "close assault" and "firefight" are more than just choices we make for how our units attack. They are states that units are found in at all times- if adjacent to a potential target they are in a close assault mode whether they are issued orders or not and if not adjacent to an enemy but in range then they are in firfight mode, again whether they receive orders or not.

I also would suggest that you are absolutely right in saying that if a unit given a close assault order,finds enemy units that were adjacent have retreated due to combat with another unit then that allied unit loses out on taking part in a combat(This is accepting that there are no other enemy targets next to it of course, which anyway it would have to attack before the retreating unit, as per the rules.)The acception being a tank unit overrunning when it follows up.
      
ekted
Member

User Pages
Posts: 52
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 19 July 2004 21:56
I think the Firefight card should have been worded differently:

"Issue an order to 4 units to open fire that are not adjacent to an enemy unit..."

While I figured out the intent of the card by reading it twice, it is the slightest bit misleading.
      
Darth Sav
Junior Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Firefight Card Sun, 25 July 2004 01:00
Hi all,

I'm trying to work out the Firefight card and have come up with this...

As most agree, you cannot issue an order to a unit which (at the time of the order) is not in a 'legal' position to carry out the action on the card. ie: with the 'Close Assault' card ...it states that you can issue an order to units 'adjacent' to enemy units. (ie: enemy units at the time of the order given, that are adjacent)... conversely this would imply that units that become adjacent as a result of a forced retreat in a previous battle would not be subject to a close assault attack. (because at the time of the order given the unit was not adjacent to another enemy unit).

Now what about this...

If at the time of the Firefight order I have say three units that 'legally' are all in a position to firefight (not adjacent to enemy units) and I want to use them to open fire...what happens if as a result of a battle an enemy unit retreats to a hex which now becomes adjacent to one of the Units I had nominated to Firefight, which at the time of the order given was legally in a firefight position... can I still firefight this unit to the new adjacent enemy unit? I think yes? ...why else would you have the ability to battle with one additional die ... i.e: fight on 4,3 and 2 (as opposed to 3,2,and 1)what is everyones view on this? ...hope this all makes sense, sorry my grammar is crap...

Cheers






      
Ubergeek
Member

User Pages
Posts: 55
Registered:
April 2004
Re:Firefight Card Sun, 25 July 2004 01:56
I think Richard needs to frequent the forum and answer some of these great questions before updating the FAQ. Razz
      
inquisitor
Member

Posts: 43
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Firefight Card Sun, 25 July 2004 19:02
We don't always need Richard to answer the questions, the answers are found in the rulebook and GI JOE has explained this one in a very clear precise manner.

I think people are failing to completely understand the basic rules, and again failing to completely read and see the card. I say see as many times one will look at and read a card seeing only certain key words and assume from these that this is what the card means. They go on to play and a question comes up. They again look at the card and this time they really read the card and see that they did something wrong because they assumed something that was not intended.

This card is very clear when read, and I don't understand why we have to keep debating issues that should not be issues.

I for one am very glad that the group I game with don't have all of these problems. If I didn't know better and judged this game by the amount of debate that goes on over the wording and the intent of this game I would not have purchased it, it appears broken, but I know better.

I however got to into a demo (I believe it was Eric), and saw how simple the rules where, and how simple it played out. I purchased it on the spot.


Eric, Yann or Richard if you are reading this, I would like to suggest that an official rules question only forum be established in which a person could ask a question and get an answer from someone that was considered the official response instead of these endless debates over how everyone reads something different
      
BloodyBucket
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 193
Registered:
May 2004
Re:Firefight Card Sun, 25 July 2004 20:07
Bah. I enjoy the discussions, and a dictat that any questions must be filed in the proper format would certainly be unwelcome here. A forum should be a little raucus, that makes it interesting. Smile

The mere presence of the posts about interpreting the rules indicates that they are not clear to all, and that isn't surprising, almost no rulebook for something more complex than tic-tac-toe could ever be crystal clear to everyone.
      
ekted
Member

User Pages
Posts: 52
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Firefight Card Sun, 25 July 2004 21:03
Here's the kind of thing that happens. These are rules for fictional game:

"Only a red or blue unit may move during this phase. It may move 1 or 2 spaces. At the end of the phase, you may move your red unit back 1 space."

What is the intent? Is it really as written? You know eveyone is going to ask the question. This is exactly the same issue as the Firefight card, and Close Assault card for that matter.
      
Scipio
Junior Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
July 2004
Re:Firefight Card Sun, 25 July 2004 22:04
inquisitor wrote on Sun, 25 July 2004 13:02

We don't always need Richard to answer the questions, the answers are found in the rulebook and GI JOE has explained this one in a very clear precise manner.

I think people are failing to completely understand the basic rules, and again failing to completely read and see the card. I say see as many times one will look at and read a card seeing only certain key words and assume from these that this is what the card means. They go on to play and a question comes up. They again look at the card and this time they really read the card and see that they did something wrong because they assumed something that was not intended.

This card is very clear when read, and I don't understand why we have to keep debating issues that should not be issues.


Well if the card/rules on this was as clear as you seem to think it is we wouldn't have 20+ posts discussing how it should be interpreted, would we?

Quote:

I for one am very glad that the group I game with don't have all of these problems. If I didn't know better and judged this game by the amount of debate that goes on over the wording and the intent of this game I would not have purchased it, it appears broken, but I know better.


Well believe it or not we didn't have that problem either... Shocked

We just agreed on that there was room for more than one interpretation and decided to play the way that made the most sense to us at the time and continued to have loads of fun without any of the problems that you imply we must have had... Rolling Eyes


Quote:

Eric, Yann or Richard if you are reading this, I would like to suggest that an official rules question only forum be established in which a person could ask a question and get an answer from someone that was considered the official response instead of these endless debates over how everyone reads something different


Well this is a bit narrowminded isn't it? If you feel that you can't stand to read all the posts that you don't like in this forum you could just stop reading them right?
I don't see what's so bad in this thread that those who like to discuss a subject such as this should move away to some other forum just because you don't think that it is discussion that they should enjoy??
      
Ubergeek
Member

User Pages
Posts: 55
Registered:
April 2004
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 26 July 2004 06:27
I have nothing against an official answer. But like most here, I certainly enjoy the forums. Different questions and different interpretations give insight to something I might have missed or didn't think of as well as unusual situation that occur. I post my interpretations on rules questions as exactly that. They're mine. I'm not saying "do it my way because it's right or else". Ultimately I'm going to do it my way anyway unless I find a better reason posted here to do it different, or get an official answer. But if the FAQ handlers are reading this, they can always reply here or put an official answer in the next version of the FAQ. You don't need a special forum for it.

I agree that if you can't handle the conversation or it gets too heated for you, then it's time to back out of it. "Sometimes tis better to remain tacit and thought the fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." I guess the correllary to that is "quit while you're ahead". I know I've done both at times. Razz
      
labalbi
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

User Pages
Posts: 209
Registered:
September 2006
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 12 November 2007 18:28
Hummm
I have no question about how the Firefight card work (ordering units).
A have a question about the +1 dice.

Since you CANT be adjacent to your enemy BUT you gain +1 on dices so the right thing to do is :

1 - INF rolls 032 instead of 321
2 - ARM rolls 044 instead of 333
3 - ART rolls 043322 instead of 332211

Right ?
Thanks !
      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1364
Registered:
March 2005
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 12 November 2007 19:03
yep... you got it right...
      
Whiterook
Senior Member

Posts: 296
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Firefight Card Tue, 13 November 2007 20:32
Texas gamer wrote on Wed, 14 July 2004 09:01

You can't order that unit, which happens before firing, if you are not sure it will be able to fire.



Hey Texas....LOVE the Avatar!!! The show rocks, big time!
      
Whiterook
Senior Member

Posts: 296
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Firefight Card Tue, 13 November 2007 20:55
inquisitor wrote on Sun, 25 July 2004 13:02


Eric, Yann or Richard if you are reading this, I would like to suggest that an official rules question only forum be established in which a person could ask a question and get an answer from someone that was considered the official response instead of these endless debates over how everyone reads something different



I too do not agree with this statement. That's getting far too away from one of the more enjoyable facets of this "forum"...hearing out and working through issues; and commenting on playability of the system. Yeah, some responses are out of left field, but there have been times when the words come out of my mouth of, "I'm glad someone else had problems with that!" (Kinda soothes the bruised ego, eh?)

This forum fulfills just what DoW was hoping for, I'm pretty darned sure. Keep the questions coming, boys...the only stupid question is the one not asked.
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

User Pages
Posts: 2195
Registered:
October 2004
Re:Firefight Card Wed, 14 November 2007 12:10
GI Joe wrote on Mon, 19 July 2004 03:05


The Armor Assault card is different. It permits you to select ANY 4 armor units. You are giving them normal orders to move and/or battle, it just gives you the special property that if any of them end up in close assault when it's time to battle, you get an extra die, even on an overrun attack (as per the FAQ).


I will check this, but I do not believe that the armor gets the +1 dice for an Overrun close assault. They only get that bonus for their first attack.
      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1364
Registered:
March 2005
Re:Firefight Card Wed, 14 November 2007 18:14
Armor Assault Card

Q. With the Armor Assault card (which gives Armor units 1 additional die in Close Assault), if an Armor unit successfully Overruns, leading to a second Close Assault, does the Armor unit still get the extra die in the Overrun attack?

A. Yes


from the faq
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

User Pages
Posts: 2195
Registered:
October 2004
Re:Firefight Card Wed, 14 November 2007 22:26
Randwulf wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 12:14

Armor Assault Card

Q. With the Armor Assault card (which gives Armor units 1 additional die in Close Assault), if an Armor unit successfully Overruns, leading to a second Close Assault, does the Armor unit still get the extra die in the Overrun attack?

A. Yes


from the faq



Doh - that is what I get for speed reading before 6 AM (when my reading comprehension level is dangerously low).

What I meant to say was Armor that use a Close Assault card and overrun do not get the extra dice.

Sorry if my earlier reply caused any confusion.
      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1364
Registered:
March 2005
Re:Firefight Card Thu, 15 November 2007 00:42
tank commander wrote on Thu, 15 November 2007 00:26

Randwulf wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 12:14

Armor Assault Card

Q. With the Armor Assault card (which gives Armor units 1 additional die in Close Assault), if an Armor unit successfully Overruns, leading to a second Close Assault, does the Armor unit still get the extra die in the Overrun attack?

A. Yes


from the faq



Doh - that is what I get for speed reading before 6 AM (when my reading comprehension level is dangerously low).

What I meant to say was Armor that use a Close Assault card and overrun do not get the extra dice.

Sorry if my earlier reply caused any confusion.




But they do get the plus 1 die if they are close assaulting again!!! if they are firing at range they don't because it's not a close assault and the card only gives the bonus to the close stuff... read the FAQ again!!! lol...
      
Brummbar44
DoW Content Provider
Artillery Specialist

User Pages
Posts: 1129
Registered:
June 2004
Re:Firefight Card Thu, 15 November 2007 05:01
Actually, I think TC is right. I remember running across that some time ago thinking that the +1 still applied (and, that the next attack could only be close...which...I still think it should be).

As it turned out...not only does the +1 not apply...but tanks can suddenly fire at range on an overrun.

Again, I would like to protest this ruling!

The card should be played in the most direct interpretation...Close Assaults only and +1 to all Close Assaults (ie. they would apply to overruns too...but only if it is still close).
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

User Pages
Posts: 2195
Registered:
October 2004
Re:Firefight Card Thu, 15 November 2007 11:41
Brummbär wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 23:01

Actually, I think TC is right. I remember running across that some time ago thinking that the +1 still applied (and, that the next attack could only be close...which...I still think it should be).

As it turned out...not only does the +1 not apply...but tanks can suddenly fire at range on an overrun.


Here is the offical ruling from Mr. Borg that I copied from one of these threads on Close Assault:

The Close Assault card states - Issues an order to all Infantry and Armor units adjacent to enemy units. Units order battle with 1 additional die. Units may not move before they battle - If you have a large number of units being ordered to close assault, we suggest to avoid possible confusion that you mark all the units you can order, because retreats and eliminating units may change the eligibility of units that can close assault. The second part of the card states - but, after a successful Close Assault, they may Take Ground and Armor units may make an Armor Overrun.

We always treated Armor units that made a successful Close Assault would follow the Armor Overrun rules as in the core rule book page 11. - If the ground you take during the Overrun puts you adjacent to an enemy unit, this second battle must once again be a normal Close Combat (no 1 additional die). Otherwise the armor unit may fire at a distant unit. -

[Updated on: Fri, 16 November 2007 11:27]

      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

User Pages
Posts: 1364
Registered:
March 2005
Re:Firefight Card Thu, 15 November 2007 15:18
how did we go from an old firefight to a new close assault???


anyway the current faq is what I copied from, it has changed so then the faq needs to be changed...

and we even went over all this 5 months ago!!!! ugh....


HEY COLTSFAN!!!!!!! heads up, another one coming your way...


[Updated on: Thu, 15 November 2007 15:26]

      
Whiterook
Senior Member

Posts: 296
Registered:
December 2006
Re:Firefight Card Mon, 19 November 2007 02:00
tank commander wrote on Thu, 15 November 2007 05:41

Brummbär wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 23:01

Actually, I think TC is right. I remember running across that some time ago thinking that the +1 still applied (and, that the next attack could only be close...which...I still think it should be).

As it turned out...not only does the +1 not apply...but tanks can suddenly fire at range on an overrun.


Here is the offical ruling from Mr. Borg that I copied from one of these threads on Close Assault:

The Close Assault card states - Issues an order to all Infantry and Armor units adjacent to enemy units. Units order battle with 1 additional die. Units may not move before they battle - If you have a large number of units being ordered to close assault, we suggest to avoid possible confusion that you mark all the units you can order, because retreats and eliminating units may change the eligibility of units that can close assault. The second part of the card states - but, after a successful Close Assault, they may Take Ground and Armor units may make an Armor Overrun.

We always treated Armor units that made a successful Close Assault would follow the Armor Overrun rules as in the core rule book page 11. - If the ground you take during the Overrun puts you adjacent to an enemy unit, this second battle must once again be a normal Close Combat (no 1 additional die). Otherwise the armor unit may fire at a distant unit. -




That was very interesting, TC....I hadn't seen that before. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!
      
    
Previous Topic:120 cards in Air Pack : a good idea ?
Next Topic:Kid-Friendly M44
Goto Forum: