03-04-2024, 10:24 AM,
|
|
RE: Bombardment Chart - Example
(03-04-2024, 09:56 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:39 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:31 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: (03-01-2024, 02:08 PM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-01-2024, 08:38 AM)treadasaurusrex Wrote: In your DF example, it would be up the player taking the hit. A 3-stack could lose one step a piece if that is how the owning player wished to distribute the 3X step DF table loss to appropriate units.
Thats not at all what is being stated above, where people are arguing X or XX or XXX applies to each unit in the stack, not the stack as a whole. Which is nonsensical, as a 3X would result in each unit losing 3 steps going to negative 1. This is confusing. Would not the owning player get to decide which of his or her units take losses to satisfy the 3X result on the Direct Fire table? It might be 1 step from each unit if they were in a 3-stack, or 2 steps lost by one and another unit halved, if the owning player wanted to distribute the hits that way, correct?
Yes, you are doing it correctly, but the opinion being espoused my many in this thread is that an X means every unit in the hex takes a step loss, 2X means every unit in the hex takes 2 step losses, 3X every unit takes 3 step losses. This thread was begun by asking others if they support forcing both units in the example to take a step loss on a CRT result of X.
It almost makes me wonder if they are using a 2nd edition Bombardment chart and not realizing it? The rest of us are kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out where the interpretation is even coming from. Thanks for your reply, this is helpful, though I'm still confused.
In the example that started this thread it was using the 4th Edition Bombardment Chart. A German AT gun and an INF were both in the same hex. A bombardment throw of 12, indicates an X on the 21 column (against the INF) and another X on the 30 column (against the AT unit.
That what is confusing me. The rules lawyers on this thread say that you toss out the X result on the lower column and only count the X as a step loss on the upper column - which would only affect the AT gun unit - and I guess its organic transport unit as well. The others are saying that because both columns indicate an X result, both units should lose a step. So far, I am inclined to agree with that interpretation, since both the a and the b clauses on the Results section of the Bombardment CRT describe an X result. BUT, is maybe that is only referring to the AT weapon unit's transport, which would take the second X result in this case - leaving the INF unit unhurt?
Split columns are irrelevant here because they both resulted in "X". In this specific instance, all we have is a singular Bombardment attack that resulted in an "X" as the CRT result. Accordingly you resolve it as an X, resulting in 1 step loss to 1 combat unit (owner's choice) + removal of one transport.
Forcing the prioritization of the AT gun because of its +1 modifier apparently is a house rule that others use, but its not in the actual rules. A combat unit is a combat unit is a combat unit. This was a specific change going from second to third editions, and then carried into fourth. 2nd Edition has special rules for losses to weapon units but lets not dig into that to confuse people even more.
When it gets complicated is when the columns find a different result. Say the roll was an 11, still on the 21 and 30 columns. In this case only the AT gun would "see" the "X" result so it would be required to take the step loss. The INF "see's" the result as an "M2" and roll accordingly. The INF does not suffer an additional M2 as a result of the X for the AT gun as this, once again, is just ONE bombardment attack.
|
|
03-04-2024, 11:57 AM,
|
|
OldPueblo
Staff Sergeant
|
Posts: 8
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2022
|
|
RE: Bombardment Chart - Example
(03-04-2024, 10:24 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:56 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:39 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:31 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: (03-01-2024, 02:08 PM)triangular_cube Wrote: Thats not at all what is being stated above, where people are arguing X or XX or XXX applies to each unit in the stack, not the stack as a whole. Which is nonsensical, as a 3X would result in each unit losing 3 steps going to negative 1. This is confusing. Would not the owning player get to decide which of his or her units take losses to satisfy the 3X result on the Direct Fire table? It might be 1 step from each unit if they were in a 3-stack, or 2 steps lost by one and another unit halved, if the owning player wanted to distribute the hits that way, correct?
Yes, you are doing it correctly, but the opinion being espoused my many in this thread is that an X means every unit in the hex takes a step loss, 2X means every unit in the hex takes 2 step losses, 3X every unit takes 3 step losses. This thread was begun by asking others if they support forcing both units in the example to take a step loss on a CRT result of X.
It almost makes me wonder if they are using a 2nd edition Bombardment chart and not realizing it? The rest of us are kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out where the interpretation is even coming from. Thanks for your reply, this is helpful, though I'm still confused.
In the example that started this thread it was using the 4th Edition Bombardment Chart. A German AT gun and an INF were both in the same hex. A bombardment throw of 12, indicates an X on the 21 column (against the INF) and another X on the 30 column (against the AT unit.
That what is confusing me. The rules lawyers on this thread say that you toss out the X result on the lower column and only count the X as a step loss on the upper column - which would only affect the AT gun unit - and I guess its organic transport unit as well. The others are saying that because both columns indicate an X result, both units should lose a step. So far, I am inclined to agree with that interpretation, since both the a and the b clauses on the Results section of the Bombardment CRT describe an X result. BUT, is maybe that is only referring to the AT weapon unit's transport, which would take the second X result in this case - leaving the INF unit unhurt?
Split columns are irrelevant here because they both resulted in "X". In this specific instance, all we have is a singular Bombardment attack that resulted in an "X" as the CRT result. Accordingly you resolve it as an X, resulting in 1 step loss to 1 combat unit (owner's choice) + removal of one transport.
Forcing the prioritization of the AT gun because of its +1 modifier apparently is a house rule that others use, but its not in the actual rules. A combat unit is a combat unit is a combat unit. This was a specific change going from second to third editions, and then carried into fourth. 2nd Edition has special rules for losses to weapon units but lets not dig into that to confuse people even more.
When it gets complicated is when the columns find a different result. Say the roll was an 11, still on the 21 and 30 columns. In this case only the AT gun would "see" the "X" result so it would be required to take the step loss. The INF "see's" the result as an "M2" and roll accordingly. The INF does not suffer an additional M2 as a result of the X for the AT gun as this, once again, is just ONE bombardment attack. Thanks, this is much clearer to me, and probably others, now!
Looks like the prevailing interpretation among most of the folks I play with online was incorrect.
I will suggest a new house rule to the SEAB&JF posse about the higher column ruling being the final arbiter in these cases - at least as regards bombardment fire.
|
|
03-06-2024, 12:42 PM,
|
|
RE: Bombardment Chart - Example
(03-04-2024, 10:24 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:56 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:39 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:31 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: (03-01-2024, 02:08 PM)triangular_cube Wrote: Thats not at all what is being stated above, where people are arguing X or XX or XXX applies to each unit in the stack, not the stack as a whole. Which is nonsensical, as a 3X would result in each unit losing 3 steps going to negative 1. This is confusing. Would not the owning player get to decide which of his or her units take losses to satisfy the 3X result on the Direct Fire table? It might be 1 step from each unit if they were in a 3-stack, or 2 steps lost by one and another unit halved, if the owning player wanted to distribute the hits that way, correct?
Yes, you are doing it correctly, but the opinion being espoused my many in this thread is that an X means every unit in the hex takes a step loss, 2X means every unit in the hex takes 2 step losses, 3X every unit takes 3 step losses. This thread was begun by asking others if they support forcing both units in the example to take a step loss on a CRT result of X.
It almost makes me wonder if they are using a 2nd edition Bombardment chart and not realizing it? The rest of us are kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out where the interpretation is even coming from. Thanks for your reply, this is helpful, though I'm still confused.
In the example that started this thread it was using the 4th Edition Bombardment Chart. A German AT gun and an INF were both in the same hex. A bombardment throw of 12, indicates an X on the 21 column (against the INF) and another X on the 30 column (against the AT unit.
That what is confusing me. The rules lawyers on this thread say that you toss out the X result on the lower column and only count the X as a step loss on the upper column - which would only affect the AT gun unit - and I guess its organic transport unit as well. The others are saying that because both columns indicate an X result, both units should lose a step. So far, I am inclined to agree with that interpretation, since both the a and the b clauses on the Results section of the Bombardment CRT describe an X result. BUT, is maybe that is only referring to the AT weapon unit's transport, which would take the second X result in this case - leaving the INF unit unhurt?
Split columns are irrelevant here because they both resulted in "X". In this specific instance, all we have is a singular Bombardment attack that resulted in an "X" as the CRT result. Accordingly you resolve it as an X, resulting in 1 step loss to 1 combat unit (owner's choice) + removal of one transport.
Forcing the prioritization of the AT gun because of its +1 modifier apparently is a house rule that others use, but its not in the actual rules. A combat unit is a combat unit is a combat unit. This was a specific change going from second to third editions, and then carried into fourth. 2nd Edition has special rules for losses to weapon units but lets not dig into that to confuse people even more.
When it gets complicated is when the columns find a different result. Say the roll was an 11, still on the 21 and 30 columns. In this case only the AT gun would "see" the "X" result so it would be required to take the step loss. The INF "see's" the result as an "M2" and roll accordingly. The INF does not suffer an additional M2 as a result of the X for the AT gun as this, once again, is just ONE bombardment attack.
How does 7.5 apply here? It clearly says to apply the die roll to the different columns:
7.52 Separate Column Modifers in One Attack - In some cases, a column modifier will apply to some units in a target hex but not others. In such a case, make one dice roll for the attack, but use different columns to determine the combat results on the different target units.
I would play it where the Art and Inf each take a step loss and the infantry then must pass a M2 moral check (per 7.6)
Sonora, CavDo, ACav And 12 others like this post
"It was a battle right fierce and terrible" - Froissart
|
|
03-06-2024, 03:09 PM,
|
|
RE: Bombardment Chart - Example
(03-06-2024, 12:42 PM)garbare83686 Wrote: (03-04-2024, 10:24 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:56 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:39 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:31 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: This is confusing. Would not the owning player get to decide which of his or her units take losses to satisfy the 3X result on the Direct Fire table? It might be 1 step from each unit if they were in a 3-stack, or 2 steps lost by one and another unit halved, if the owning player wanted to distribute the hits that way, correct?
Yes, you are doing it correctly, but the opinion being espoused my many in this thread is that an X means every unit in the hex takes a step loss, 2X means every unit in the hex takes 2 step losses, 3X every unit takes 3 step losses. This thread was begun by asking others if they support forcing both units in the example to take a step loss on a CRT result of X.
It almost makes me wonder if they are using a 2nd edition Bombardment chart and not realizing it? The rest of us are kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out where the interpretation is even coming from. Thanks for your reply, this is helpful, though I'm still confused.
In the example that started this thread it was using the 4th Edition Bombardment Chart. A German AT gun and an INF were both in the same hex. A bombardment throw of 12, indicates an X on the 21 column (against the INF) and another X on the 30 column (against the AT unit.
That what is confusing me. The rules lawyers on this thread say that you toss out the X result on the lower column and only count the X as a step loss on the upper column - which would only affect the AT gun unit - and I guess its organic transport unit as well. The others are saying that because both columns indicate an X result, both units should lose a step. So far, I am inclined to agree with that interpretation, since both the a and the b clauses on the Results section of the Bombardment CRT describe an X result. BUT, is maybe that is only referring to the AT weapon unit's transport, which would take the second X result in this case - leaving the INF unit unhurt?
Split columns are irrelevant here because they both resulted in "X". In this specific instance, all we have is a singular Bombardment attack that resulted in an "X" as the CRT result. Accordingly you resolve it as an X, resulting in 1 step loss to 1 combat unit (owner's choice) + removal of one transport.
Forcing the prioritization of the AT gun because of its +1 modifier apparently is a house rule that others use, but its not in the actual rules. A combat unit is a combat unit is a combat unit. This was a specific change going from second to third editions, and then carried into fourth. 2nd Edition has special rules for losses to weapon units but lets not dig into that to confuse people even more.
When it gets complicated is when the columns find a different result. Say the roll was an 11, still on the 21 and 30 columns. In this case only the AT gun would "see" the "X" result so it would be required to take the step loss. The INF "see's" the result as an "M2" and roll accordingly. The INF does not suffer an additional M2 as a result of the X for the AT gun as this, once again, is just ONE bombardment attack.
How does 7.5 apply here? It clearly says to apply the die roll to the different columns:
7.52 Separate Column Modifers in One Attack - In some cases, a column modifier will apply to some units in a target hex but not others. In such a case, make one dice roll for the attack, but use different columns to determine the combat results on the different target units.
I would play it where the Art and Inf each take a step loss and the infantry then must pass a M2 moral check (per 7.6)
That would be conducting multiple attacks though, which is why the rules header in 7.52 specifies that it is still one attack. The interaction, albeit not this specific interaction is included in the example in the rules text. For those that dont have it up, a single split column attack results in an M1 to an Infantry unit and an X to a weapon unit per die roll.
If it was played as you are suggesting, with it being treated as two attacks with cumulative effects then the Infantry would receive an M1 and the weapon would receive an X, then the INF would receive an M2 from the cumulative effect of the X.
But that's not what happens, as the example illustrates. It is ONE attack you are just finding the result on separate columns, hence the weapon receives X and is eliminated, and the INF receives and M2 via the weapon X. The M1 is dropped, again ONE attack, not cumulative.
When ONE attack achieves an X, one step is lost, not one per unit...
Schoenwulf and cjsiam like this post
|
|
03-07-2024, 10:27 AM,
|
|
Sonora
Staff Sergeant
|
Posts: 5
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2022
|
|
RE: Bombardment Chart - Example
(03-06-2024, 12:42 PM)garbare83686 Wrote: (03-04-2024, 10:24 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:56 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:39 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:31 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: This is confusing. Would not the owning player get to decide which of his or her units take losses to satisfy the 3X result on the Direct Fire table? It might be 1 step from each unit if they were in a 3-stack, or 2 steps lost by one and another unit halved, if the owning player wanted to distribute the hits that way, correct?
Yes, you are doing it correctly, but the opinion being espoused my many in this thread is that an X means every unit in the hex takes a step loss, 2X means every unit in the hex takes 2 step losses, 3X every unit takes 3 step losses. This thread was begun by asking others if they support forcing both units in the example to take a step loss on a CRT result of X.
It almost makes me wonder if they are using a 2nd edition Bombardment chart and not realizing it? The rest of us are kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out where the interpretation is even coming from. Thanks for your reply, this is helpful, though I'm still confused.
In the example that started this thread it was using the 4th Edition Bombardment Chart. A German AT gun and an INF were both in the same hex. A bombardment throw of 12, indicates an X on the 21 column (against the INF) and another X on the 30 column (against the AT unit.
That what is confusing me. The rules lawyers on this thread say that you toss out the X result on the lower column and only count the X as a step loss on the upper column - which would only affect the AT gun unit - and I guess its organic transport unit as well. The others are saying that because both columns indicate an X result, both units should lose a step. So far, I am inclined to agree with that interpretation, since both the a and the b clauses on the Results section of the Bombardment CRT describe an X result. BUT, is maybe that is only referring to the AT weapon unit's transport, which would take the second X result in this case - leaving the INF unit unhurt?
Split columns are irrelevant here because they both resulted in "X". In this specific instance, all we have is a singular Bombardment attack that resulted in an "X" as the CRT result. Accordingly you resolve it as an X, resulting in 1 step loss to 1 combat unit (owner's choice) + removal of one transport.
Forcing the prioritization of the AT gun because of its +1 modifier apparently is a house rule that others use, but its not in the actual rules. A combat unit is a combat unit is a combat unit. This was a specific change going from second to third editions, and then carried into fourth. 2nd Edition has special rules for losses to weapon units but lets not dig into that to confuse people even more.
When it gets complicated is when the columns find a different result. Say the roll was an 11, still on the 21 and 30 columns. In this case only the AT gun would "see" the "X" result so it would be required to take the step loss. The INF "see's" the result as an "M2" and roll accordingly. The INF does not suffer an additional M2 as a result of the X for the AT gun as this, once again, is just ONE bombardment attack.
How does 7.5 apply here? It clearly says to apply the die roll to the different columns:
7.52 Separate Column Modifers in One Attack - In some cases, a column modifier will apply to some units in a target hex but not others. In such a case, make one dice roll for the attack, but use different columns to determine the combat results on the different target units.
I would play it where the Art and Inf each take a step loss and the infantry then must pass a M2 moral check (per 7.6) Granted I am still a novice at playing PG, but this interpretation makes best sense to me, especially since the bombardment rules 9.0 and 9.4 (page 24) both state that all units in the target hex are affected. Two X results should equal 2 combat unit steps lost. I have always played it this way in the RARE instances were this this kind of result is achieved.
I think that it would be wise to seek Dr. Mike's definitive advice on this matter. The 4th edition rules are not very clear on this question based on the mixed responses and attention that this matter is generating.
|
|
03-07-2024, 01:03 PM,
|
|
sagunto
Staff Sergeant
|
Posts: 7
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2022
|
|
RE: Bombardment Chart - Example
(03-06-2024, 03:09 PM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-06-2024, 12:42 PM)garbare83686 Wrote: (03-04-2024, 10:24 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:56 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:39 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: Yes, you are doing it correctly, but the opinion being espoused my many in this thread is that an X means every unit in the hex takes a step loss, 2X means every unit in the hex takes 2 step losses, 3X every unit takes 3 step losses. This thread was begun by asking others if they support forcing both units in the example to take a step loss on a CRT result of X.
It almost makes me wonder if they are using a 2nd edition Bombardment chart and not realizing it? The rest of us are kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out where the interpretation is even coming from. Thanks for your reply, this is helpful, though I'm still confused.
In the example that started this thread it was using the 4th Edition Bombardment Chart. A German AT gun and an INF were both in the same hex. A bombardment throw of 12, indicates an X on the 21 column (against the INF) and another X on the 30 column (against the AT unit.
That what is confusing me. The rules lawyers on this thread say that you toss out the X result on the lower column and only count the X as a step loss on the upper column - which would only affect the AT gun unit - and I guess its organic transport unit as well. The others are saying that because both columns indicate an X result, both units should lose a step. So far, I am inclined to agree with that interpretation, since both the a and the b clauses on the Results section of the Bombardment CRT describe an X result. BUT, is maybe that is only referring to the AT weapon unit's transport, which would take the second X result in this case - leaving the INF unit unhurt?
Split columns are irrelevant here because they both resulted in "X". In this specific instance, all we have is a singular Bombardment attack that resulted in an "X" as the CRT result. Accordingly you resolve it as an X, resulting in 1 step loss to 1 combat unit (owner's choice) + removal of one transport.
Forcing the prioritization of the AT gun because of its +1 modifier apparently is a house rule that others use, but its not in the actual rules. A combat unit is a combat unit is a combat unit. This was a specific change going from second to third editions, and then carried into fourth. 2nd Edition has special rules for losses to weapon units but lets not dig into that to confuse people even more.
When it gets complicated is when the columns find a different result. Say the roll was an 11, still on the 21 and 30 columns. In this case only the AT gun would "see" the "X" result so it would be required to take the step loss. The INF "see's" the result as an "M2" and roll accordingly. The INF does not suffer an additional M2 as a result of the X for the AT gun as this, once again, is just ONE bombardment attack.
How does 7.5 apply here? It clearly says to apply the die roll to the different columns:
7.52 Separate Column Modifers in One Attack - In some cases, a column modifier will apply to some units in a target hex but not others. In such a case, make one dice roll for the attack, but use different columns to determine the combat results on the different target units.
I would play it where the Art and Inf each take a step loss and the infantry then must pass a M2 moral check (per 7.6)
That would be conducting multiple attacks though, which is why the rules header in 7.52 specifies that it is still one attack. The interaction, albeit not this specific interaction is included in the example in the rules text. For those that dont have it up, a single split column attack results in an M1 to an Infantry unit and an X to a weapon unit per die roll.
If it was played as you are suggesting, with it being treated as two attacks with cumulative effects then the Infantry would receive an M1 and the weapon would receive an X, then the INF would receive an M2 from the cumulative effect of the X.
But that's not what happens, as the example illustrates. It is ONE attack you are just finding the result on separate columns, hence the weapon receives X and is eliminated, and the INF receives and M2 via the weapon X. The M1 is dropped, again ONE attack, not cumulative.
When ONE attack achieves an X, one step is lost, not one per unit... I don't understand how this could be considered more than ONE attack, that happens to hit two separate units in a single, 200 meter target hex. Two X results in two columns should equate to 2 step losses, IMHO.
|
|
03-07-2024, 02:38 PM,
|
|
RE: Bombardment Chart - Example
(03-07-2024, 10:27 AM)Sonora Wrote: (03-06-2024, 12:42 PM)garbare83686 Wrote: (03-04-2024, 10:24 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:56 AM)OldPueblo Wrote: (03-04-2024, 09:39 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: Yes, you are doing it correctly, but the opinion being espoused my many in this thread is that an X means every unit in the hex takes a step loss, 2X means every unit in the hex takes 2 step losses, 3X every unit takes 3 step losses. This thread was begun by asking others if they support forcing both units in the example to take a step loss on a CRT result of X.
It almost makes me wonder if they are using a 2nd edition Bombardment chart and not realizing it? The rest of us are kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out where the interpretation is even coming from. Thanks for your reply, this is helpful, though I'm still confused.
In the example that started this thread it was using the 4th Edition Bombardment Chart. A German AT gun and an INF were both in the same hex. A bombardment throw of 12, indicates an X on the 21 column (against the INF) and another X on the 30 column (against the AT unit.
That what is confusing me. The rules lawyers on this thread say that you toss out the X result on the lower column and only count the X as a step loss on the upper column - which would only affect the AT gun unit - and I guess its organic transport unit as well. The others are saying that because both columns indicate an X result, both units should lose a step. So far, I am inclined to agree with that interpretation, since both the a and the b clauses on the Results section of the Bombardment CRT describe an X result. BUT, is maybe that is only referring to the AT weapon unit's transport, which would take the second X result in this case - leaving the INF unit unhurt?
Split columns are irrelevant here because they both resulted in "X". In this specific instance, all we have is a singular Bombardment attack that resulted in an "X" as the CRT result. Accordingly you resolve it as an X, resulting in 1 step loss to 1 combat unit (owner's choice) + removal of one transport.
Forcing the prioritization of the AT gun because of its +1 modifier apparently is a house rule that others use, but its not in the actual rules. A combat unit is a combat unit is a combat unit. This was a specific change going from second to third editions, and then carried into fourth. 2nd Edition has special rules for losses to weapon units but lets not dig into that to confuse people even more.
When it gets complicated is when the columns find a different result. Say the roll was an 11, still on the 21 and 30 columns. In this case only the AT gun would "see" the "X" result so it would be required to take the step loss. The INF "see's" the result as an "M2" and roll accordingly. The INF does not suffer an additional M2 as a result of the X for the AT gun as this, once again, is just ONE bombardment attack.
How does 7.5 apply here? It clearly says to apply the die roll to the different columns:
7.52 Separate Column Modifers in One Attack - In some cases, a column modifier will apply to some units in a target hex but not others. In such a case, make one dice roll for the attack, but use different columns to determine the combat results on the different target units.
I would play it where the Art and Inf each take a step loss and the infantry then must pass a M2 moral check (per 7.6) Granted I am still a novice at playing PG, but this interpretation makes best sense to me, especially since the bombardment rules 9.0 and 9.4 (page 24) both state that all units in the target hex are affected. Two X results should equal 2 combat unit steps lost. I have always played it this way in the RARE instances were this this kind of result is achieved.
I think that it would be wise to seek Dr. Mike's definitive advice on this matter. The 4th edition rules are not very clear on this question based on the mixed responses and attention that this matter is generating.
Every unit in the target hex is affected even in a one column attack. X impacts all units, one with a step loss and the rest with M2 or M. This doesnt mean that all units in the hex take a step loss on an X.
Schoenwulf likes this post
|
|
|