| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 428
|
|
|
Post subject: "Neither in front of nor behind the unit"
|
 |
|
This frickin' rule drives me bananas. Can someone help me out here?
| Quote: | A hex is "in front of" a unit if a line from the center of that hex to the center of the unit's hex goes through one of the front three sides of the unit's hex or through one of the front two corners of the hex.
A hex is "behind" a unit if the line goes through one of the three rear sides of the hex or through one of the two rear corners.
[Here comes the offending text] If the hex is directly to the left or right of the unit's hex, then that hex is neither in front of nor behind the unit. The hex that the unit is in is also neither in front of nor behind the unit. |
Soooooo...
...the logic of this dictates that I can't attack either the target's front or rear defence values. Which means I can't attack it at all.
And that is fricking ridiculous. We obviously don't play that way.
So someone should be able to choose which defense value will stand against the attack. Who chooses, the attacker or the defender? Roll a dice, flip a coin? (That actually might be fun...) |
|
 Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:46 am |
|
|
Posts: 373
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
You missed this sentence in a preceding paragraph:
"Units along the line of hexes who's line of sight crosses the junction between being 'in front of' and 'behind' a target unit enter an alternate dimension and disappear from the board until the GDVC (Galactic Dimensional Violation Committee) can determine their fate."
That's what it says in my rulebook! 
It actually wouldn't surprise me any more than the horribly written sentence you site. I have to admit I never noticed that. Perhaps my logical mind blocked recognition of that ridiculously worded rule.
I would assume that in this situation the attack would be against the rear armor of the unit in question. That's the way it is in every other hex based wargame I can think of.
_________________
Trade List at:
http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/about5563.html
Updated 10/2/09
+52 on the Good Trader List |
|
| Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:36 am |
|
|
Posts: 428
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
You had me going there until "alternate dimension"! 
I sure hope it's the rear armour, because that would make it a lot easier for me to flank my enemies. Oh wait, except that my enemies are usually Russians with no weaknesses in their rear armour. And oh yeah, my German tanks usually have paper thin rear armour. So...dang it! |
|
| Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:50 am |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
It's relevant to FIXED HOWITZER, FIXED REAR GUN & NO TURRET. Check the text of the SA's.
Attacks from those hexes go against rear armor.
_________________
 |
|
| Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:02 am |
|
|
Posts: 428
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand, because the issue arises (in my mind) when the attacker is firing a turretted weapon:
(The Sherman's gun rotates [given the idealization of the game representation] to exactly down the centre of the hex point and thus into the hex point of the target, putting the attack at neither the front nor the rear of the target)
Are you saying that the clarification of the fixed weapon SAs ports over to this scenario with turretted weapons? And thus, in this example, the Sherman's attack is resolved against the Panzer's rear armour values? |
|
| Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:01 am |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
No. The not front/not rear thing is separate from the definition that any attacks along the spine into the side of a vehicle are against the rear armor.
It's two entirely different things. The Sherman's attack against the rear armor comes from a separate rule.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:15 am |
|
|
mmm....oreos
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Sherman firing at rear of Panzer.
Panzer firing at front of Sherman.
_________________
He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent, and thereby
succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain.
-SUN TZU- |
|
| Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:04 pm |
|
|
Holding the line...
Posts: 1655
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Had the Panzer IV been a Hetzer for example, it would not be able to attack the Sherman. Thats all it means.
_________________
 |
|
| Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:12 pm |
|
|
Posts: 885
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Thanks, this really helps. I was confused by that too. |
|
| Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:22 pm |
|
|
Posts: 428
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Ah, okay then! Very interesting.
Whereabouts do I find the rule that states the Sherman is shooting at the rear armour of the Panzer? I'll need to back this up next time I play, probably. (I take it that the Hetzer-type rule is disambiguated in an FAQ somewhere.) |
|
| Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:04 am |
|
|
mmm....oreos
AHF Gold-Rated Trader
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Page 18 Advanced Rules.
_________________
He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent, and thereby
succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain.
-SUN TZU- |
|
| Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:14 am |
|
|
Posts: 428
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Oh, that's embarassing! It's right there in black & white on p. 17: | Quote: | | Attacks against Vehicles in the same hex are against the unit's rear defense, as are attacks from hexes directly to the right or left of the Vehicle. |
 |
|
| Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:52 am |
|
|
|
