Return and Opportunity fire

[Sean Clark]

As I read the rules, I am assuming you can not have Return and Opportunity fire at the same target in the same turn?

So an enemy base in a facing square shoots me with opportunity fire. I then shoot using AP. I take it he can't then use Return Shooting?

Am I right or wrong?

[Leslie BT]

I think that you are correct Sean.
This also happens in FfM as well.
This concept started in Spanish Civil War were it is also used.

[Noggin]

Reading the rules just now it would appear you are incorrect

I can't see anything that states you cannot opportunity fire, be shot at and then return fire.

This point was made in the You Tube video review which was on the forum but suddenly became a weird discussion of castles in Wales and was then locked!

I have watched some of the review but I think I would probably end up beating myself with a stick as it is such hard going. He is not a natural to say the least. However he does make some valid points regarding the rules wording. The proximity point was fairly indisputable.

I enjoy playing Western but if you need everything explained and set out clearly you are on a loser e.g. if you want to find out what proximity means it is not clear from the index where to find it (at least I can't).

[Leslie BT]

Agreed Noggin, I read it the wrong way around.

Yes you can use both types of fire in the turn.

[Stewart 46A]

Opportunity and return fire from the same unit first appeared in Vietnam (rules) then SCW and Western  and now FfM
Remember opportunity and return fire requires a 6 to hit
The active player requires 5 or 6 and can pin/hammer down the target


Stewart

[Sean Clark]

Am I misremembering then? So you can fire twice as the passive player? Once in opportunity fire and once in Return Shooting? I was sure you could only do one when in a facing square. 🤔

I must be getting old and mixing things up 🤣😂

[Sean Clark]

Thank you Noggin.

Yes the video is a tad laborious. I locked the thread because I prefer positivity on the forum rather than negativity. And whilst I enjoy talk of castles, the conversation had come to a natural end. However, this question remained unanswered.

[Noggin]

Sean

I am not surprised you locked it. Many of the points being made were truly pedantic. It doesn't take much to realise that the statement 'no diagonal involvement' was an error and thus just ignore that statement. Maybe I should make an hour long video indicating that BAW is not a grid based rule set as was stated! 😂

Considering this person claims to have many rule sets he should be familiar with the the odd error being fairly common, if not universal, otherwise why are they always followed by FAQs and errata sheets / posts.
I certainly wouldn't be watching any more of the videos, they were dire.

Nick

[Sean Clark]

Well said.

[pbeccas (Paul)]

Stay on target.  Stay positive,  This is a positive forum.

[Sean Clark]

Also we'll said.

I'll go and take my tablets!

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

I'm staying with the positive chaps and will be leaving the nay-sayers to their ramblings...
I'm something of a ruleaphobe but I found the whole thing mindnumbing and negative. What a waste of an hour! Any set of rules will have a few glitches and we are all of an age where errata sheets/posts are the norm.

[Sean Clark]

Thanks for the replies chaps. All is well with the world. I think we shall move onto other things.