In a game this week we came to an agreement over the below situation but after watch online not sure so just after clarity.
I had 3 units in combat with two opponents to the front. One of the opponents units had 6 damage while the other 0 wounds.
I wanted to attack with my far left unit all attacks on his unit . Then attack with my far right unit . When these were completed I wanted to decide then which attacks my centre unit would allocate before rolling.
After looking at the rules which stated all attacks must be allocated before you roll we decided I would allocated my attacks for the centre unit before I rolled any attacks. I split my centre units attack but after my other units fought only one was left so I lost half the attacks of my central unit.
I have watched games online and they allocated attacks unit by unit in multiple combats rather than all of them.
Hmm, interesting. I had assumed that you could allocate and resolve attacks unit by unit, but now that youâve asked I looked it up and I now think I was wrong. Looks like the wording of the rules leans towards the conclusion you reached, that we should decide on attack allocation for ALL units in the combat before rolling ANY dice.
Particularly Iâm looking at the example âA Larger, Multiple Combatâ on page 75, which states: âIn the Turn of the Blue army, the Blue player first decides how their units will allocate their attacks, before rolling any dice.â
Decide how you are splitting attacks before any dice are rolled - quote above covers it.
From the wording it also looks like you need to resolve all attacks against an enemy unit, then move on to another unit (ie resolve âeach combatâ)?
âAt this stage, there could be a number of Combats on the table. Each Combat involves all the units currently Engaged with each other. Pick one of these Combats and resolve it completely before moving to the next, and so on until all Combats have been resolved. In your Turn, the order you resolve these in is up to you. â P34
You have 3 units engaged with two enemies, so resolve all the attacks (including the predetermined split) against one (your choice), - roll nerve and, if routed, choose post combat action - then repeat with 2nd target.
Iâm not sure about that. To me the sentence âEach Combat involves all the units currently Engaged with each otherâ implies that if you have 3 units engaged with 2 enemies in a sort of conga line, then all five of those units are part of the same Combat. And you resolve that Combat as one âitemâ - so youâd roll all your attacks and damage (for all your units involved), then roll nerve (for all relevant units), then resolve post combat actions where relevant.
And as FredOslow points out, that means youâd never end up with a unit losing their target before they can roll to attack.
Itâs how to treat âengaged with each otherâ that matters.
In this 3 v 2 example there are two units, one from either side, that are not âengaged with each otherâ. Does this therefore mean it is a separate Combat and thus has to be resolved separately?
Remember that prior to the splitting of attacks youâd have had to declare which of the two units the âmiddleâ one of the three would countercharge, before seeing how much damage the âoutsideâ units did to the enemy. You could easily âloseâ those attacks if the other unit did lots of damage first.
Itâs another point where sticky combat and splitting attacks hasnât really been dealt with thoroughly, so it isnât clear either way.
I see where youâre coming from, but I feel the example on page 75 suggests that no, theyâre part of the same combat. It shows a great big conga-line of units and says âIn this situation, six units are fighting in a single multiple Combatâ. I think from that weâre meant to conclude that as long as thereâs a contiguous chain of engagement then itâs all the same combat.
Yeah, it isnât entirely clear - and doesnât really help that potentially complicated bits get half a page at the end of the book
Maybe it is just a hangover from 3rd that resolving all attacks against a single enemy & doing nerve check etc, then going to the next attacked unit seems ârightâ and is carried into 4th even with some wording/rule changes?
