Hi!
One more question! ;D
If a unit can always make opportunity fire against an unit that is charging them and the first step is to rotate the unit in case the charge is from the side or the rear, how can the 1d6 lose be applied for being charged from the side or the rear? the unit receiving the charge will be always receinving the charge on its front, never on the rear or the side.
Thank you! ;)
The criteria/rule for being "attacked in the flank" -2 is having enemy on any other face and being attacked from a direction that is not the front.
The reasoning is that being "occupied" on two or more faces is bad news.
In precise detail the zone would be mostly facing the incoming threat but would need to divert some part of its attention to the other/additional imminent threat.
Front is ALWAYS toward the opponent table edge.
Bows can still shoot at an assaulter.
The fact they shoot has no link with whether they are being flank attacked or not. They are responding to being assaulted.
martin :)
Thank you Martin for you answer! but it is still unclear for me. :-\
For example, taking a look at the following picture:
(https://i.postimg.cc/BvXXSDdT/Example.png)
Blue unit is attacking red unit.
- Case A: once the blue unit declares the charge, red unit turns and performs the opporunity shooting. Assuming that the blue unit survives the shooting and contacts the red unit, does the red unit lose 1d6 for being charged from the side?
- Case B: Red unit is currently figthing the first blue unit when the second blue unit charges them. The red unit retreats 1", turns and shoots, right? Again, assuming the sencond blue unit surives the shooting and contacts the red unit, does the red unit lose 2d6 for bieng in a fight when they receive the second charge and being charged from the side?
Thank you one more time! ;)
Hello Nake
Your diagrams do you credit. Excellent.
CASE A
The assaulting unit will always survive any shooting .
Shooting cannot stop a charge.
If the red unit is being charged from any direction apart from the enemy base edge it is going to suffer a -2 for being hit in the flank/rear.
This -2 is however ignored if there are no other enemy close by but just the assaulter.
ie
A. I am hit in the flank/rear but no enemy on any other of my faces = does not count as a flank assault because I can give this assault my full attention.
OR
B. I am hit in the flank/rear but I have enemy on another face too= Oh dear! I am being occupied/consumed by multiple threats. This is bad news. I cannot give my full attention to this assault because I must guard against other possible enemy close by who I feel threatened by (whether or not they are charging me). Thus, I will suffer a -2D6 in the fight.
Case B
In all situations a single zone fights a single zone.
This means that multiple assaults are carried out each to conclusion before another assault is carried out.
e.g A zone full of German foot is attacked on one face by Roman cavalry and on another face by Roman foot units.
The Roman is doing the assaulting so it must be the Roman turn.
The roman player chooses which of the two assaults he would like to carry out first.
The German player can fall back and suffer a 5D6 pursuit roll inflicted on him by the Roman player. Alternatively he can stand and fight.
If the German choose the "fall back" option he will move the entire contents of his zone backwards.The Roman assaulter will move into the vacated zone and award himself two win markers. The second Roman assault will not happen but the Roman zine will still receive/award two win markers.
If the German zone rebuffs/wins the first Roman assault then the second assault is considered. Before the second assault is considered the first assault is now finished and in the past. It is not part of this second assault. Each assault is distinct and separate.
This second assault will cause the Germans to suffer a -2 for fighting a 2nd, 3rd or 4th time in the same turn (application is a yes/no). They are getting tired!
This second assault will have an outcome on the two zones fighting each other. The zone that fought before is not part of this second assault apart from supplying a supporting role such as "close order combined".
It is probably better advice for a player carrying out multiple assaults to try to get all the bonuses on just one of his assaults.
This would mean using his better assault second so that the enemy suffers a -2D6 for having already fought an assault this turn.
Keep the questions coming Nake as it is helpful to ther players I think. Good diagrams too.
martin :)
Ummm, Nake is talking about PITS rules and you have leapt into C&K rules talking about Romans lol. Not sure if the rules deal with it the same way.
I have played only one game of PITS and I seem to recall it isn't a grided game but may be wrong there. Hard to compare the rules between the 2 differing systems.
Cheers
Derek
Oh gosh!
Many apologies.
I will have a read of PITS to see what is going on. Unless someone else knows?
martin :-[
;D ;D ;D
Do not worry Martin, you made my day ;D
After reading the rules one more time I think, now, I undestand how charges work.
Thank you anyway! ;)
Whoops!
Do you wnat me to go over charges for PITS Nake, or any other random rule set?
martin :-[
Has anyone ever [intentionally] tried two different forces, each playing to a quite different rule set...?
Simon